France may rejoin NATO

[MigBuster 2,884]

Just as we thought NATO was falling apart:

 

 

 

PARIS: French President Nicolas Sarkozy announced a major overhaul of the country's defense to better meet new threats like terrorism. Mr. Sarkozy also announced France was ready to rejoin NATO's military wing, after a four-decade absence.

 

President Sarkozy presented France's new defense strategy in a much awaited speech, outlining a leaner military that he argued would be better equipped to respond to terrorism, missile attacks and other modern-day threats.

 

Mr. Sarkozy said that six or seven years from now, French forces will total 225,000. He acknowledged that amounted to a steep cut from their current level of 270,000, and that bases would be closed. But he vowed to make France even stronger militarily than it is today.

 

While Mr. Sarkozy said the government was looking for cost cutting measures, he also said it would spend roughly $4.6 billion more annually to equip its forces.

 

The French president also said France aims to soon return to NATO's military command after pulling out in 1966.

 

Mr. Sarkozy said those who authored the defense report saw no reason why France should not participate in NATO's defense wing. He said France would retain complete freedom on deciding whether or not to participate in military operations and officials say it would remain in control of its nuclear-defense program.

 

Mr. Sarkozy has also emphasized building up the EU military capabilities, and had been expected to push this when France takes over the bloc's rotating presidency next month. But he may now face a roadblock, since Ireland rejected the EU treaty that is aimed to further integrate Europe, including its defense strategy.

 

 

from Article

[BUFF 8]

They may not have officially been a member for 40 years but they have been very much aligned.

We frequently get French AF & Navy aircraft participating in NATO exercises here.

[Guest pfunkmusik]

Sounds like the dude's serious. Good for them.

 

pfunk

[Emp_Palpatine 501]

Sounds like the dude's serious. Good for them.

 

pfunk

Here's an atypical french man point of view. Atypical because of his conservatism and the fact that he believes in the atlantic alliance, etc... Well, let's say a French who would have love to vote for Ronald Reagan.

 

The fact that we are going to rejoin the integrated command is for me a very good news. Good, because it may help to put an end to all these useless gaullist and post-gaullist expeditions (Africa) or stances (remember Villepin in the UN in 2003 and the huge impact on our relations with the US and eastern europe). That cost us much and bring about nothing, even prestige. But my guess is that France will not lose much of its now empoverished old aristocrat arrogance.

It's good also because it can help to slow down the build up of a so-called european army whose goals are to compete with the US, not stand by them. For me, that would be catastrophic for the western world.

 

But you have to stay cautious with sarkozy: he likes to play a show and the facts often don't match. He was said to be a "tatcher" for France, and now he is bowing before trade unions and socialists. It's the same in military matters: he's saying he will strengthen it but he's cutting funds. Our soldiers don't have the right, in France, to give openly their opinion on policies, but a few day ago, some high ranking officers wrote (in an anonymous manner) in papers in order to explain why the new policies of the "White book" are going to bring french military down to the rank of Italy's one (I don't mean to insult italian fellow, btw).

 

So my guess about all of this is, except for the nato part, things will worsen for french military. :(

Edited June 23, 2008 by Emp_Palpatine

[Guest pfunkmusik]

Finally. An actual French citizen's input. We only get to see the American news services' view of Sarkozy.

 

pfunk

[Emp_Palpatine 501]

Keep in mind it's my point of view, and that most people here see him as the most conservative and US oriented president since... a long time ago!

Well, if he's conservative, Obama is a fascist!

 

BTW, papers often say here that US media do like Sarkozy, is that a fact?

[Guest pfunkmusik]

Keep in mind it's my point of view, and that most people here see him as the most conservative and US oriented president since... a long time ago!

Well, if he's conservative, Obama is a fascist!

 

BTW, papers often say here that US media do like Sarkozy, is that a fact?

 

LOL. Actually, about him they're pretty ambivalent, they're more or less waiting to see what he's going to do. I think they're actually more fascinated by the complete bombshell he wed in his first months of office.

 

pfunk

[Emp_Palpatine 501]

I think they're actually more fascinated by the complete bombshell he wed in his first months of office.

 

pfunk

Just like some of ours, then! The evil plan works...

[+Piecemeal 450]

But you have to stay cautious with sarkozy

 

 

It seems to me these days that (politically) nobody on this continent does anything unless it benefits them in a big way

[+Dave 2,322]

We do enough operations with France so it will be nice if they join NATO again.

[JediMaster 451]

It seems to me these days that (politically) nobody on this continent does anything unless it benefits them in a big way

 

 

Ah, so, just like the rest of the world then?

Everything here boils down to one thing--what will get me reelected?

[TX3RN0BILL 3]

Ah, so, just like the rest of the world then?

Everything here boils down to one thing--what will get me reelected?

 

Not everybody in the world cares for reelection...

 

Recalling a joke I saw in Newsweek...

 

Clinton, on a visit to China: "Do you have elections?"

 

Chinese President: "Yes, yes, evely molning!"

[Stwa 18]

1. France's return to NATO will be about as meaningless as their departure in 1966.

 

2. The only country seriously contemplating the use of nuclear weapons is North Korea (because they don't have an ISP).

 

3. 20th century thoughts of world-wide domination have been replaced with 21st century thoughts of world-wide decadence (East, West, North, and South), courtesy of the internet.

 

4. Everyone is just too busy downloading.

[DarthRevan 3]

Personally I think NATO is not needed anymore since the Warzaw pact crumbled and dissapeared

[MigBuster 2,884]

It may as well not exist with the amount the so called member countries are giving support to Afganistan - unless the press are just hyping things up of course.

[SayethWhaaaa 245]

Personally I think NATO is not needed anymore since the Warzaw pact crumbled and dissapeared

 

Nato hasn't been 'just' a counter to the Warsaw Pact for almost 20 years. It's purpose has evolved beyond grouping member countries under an organisational umbrella to counter any mass eastern bloc assault. Humanitarian operations, enforcement of EU policy, logistical support and so on are some of it's prime functions these days, not to mention interoperability programs and familiarisation/modernisation for newer members. So in that context, and I mean no disrespect to the lovely French peoples, this is why it really won't matter a whole lot since the other nations take care of this anyways.

 

The French will always do what they are going to do, love them or hate hem for that, it's just their way. On one hand, it makes sense to rejoin since adding their resources would certainly benefit the whole, but not if it includes the French bureaucracy that has been a total pain in the arse in the past. It'd be good to seem them rejoin, but at the same time, it's had to work well without them for 42 years, so they'll cope.

[Bearkiller72 0]

It's good also because it can help to slow down the build up of a so-called european army whose goals are to compete with the US, not stand by them.[/endquote]

 

What's that supposed to mean? Why are you afraid of a "European Army"? You might not have noticed, but there is something of a "European Union" (and business competiveness against U.S. companies is almost at the all out war level). The E.U. might be still in it's toddler ages, but it will become mature and emerge as the "United States of Europe" some day in the not too distant future. So, why shouldn't we have our own armed forces? In the past 15 Years NATO members have only had the sole purpose to get their a$$es shot off for U.S. Gov' interests and to clean up the mess & rubble the GI's have left behind.

 

Nato hasn't been 'just' a counter to the Warsaw Pact for almost 20 years. It's purpose has evolved beyond grouping member countries under an organisational umbrella to counter any mass eastern bloc assault.[/endquote]

 

NATO was originally formed as a successor to "SHAEF", the high command of brit/U.S. troops invading Europe and Germany.

Originally it was designed with the Germans as enemy in mind, but as history changed it's course, the enemies name did.

Oh, and it wasn't just 20 Years, it was 45+ years

 

Nowadays NATO to me seems somewhat outdated; the "commie" threat is gone, the cold war also. New enemies had to be spotted to keep the machine oiled and running, the cards have been shuffled again. There are new "major" players and the U.S. have proven that they are able to undertake large-scale operations on their own. So do we really need "NATO" anymore?

 

Speaking as a proud supporter of the European idea, I'd say no and vote "Yes" for a European Army.

 

(While of course our weak-kneed "Eurocrats", lacking of energy and imagination will care for the "slowing-down" process themselves. )

 

Hope I didn't insult anybody, Cheers!

Edited July 4, 2008 by Bearkiller72

[Emp_Palpatine 501]

What's that supposed to mean? Why are you afraid of a "European Army"? You might not have noticed, but there is something of a "European Union" (and business competiveness against U.S. companies is almost at the all out war level). The E.U. might be still in it's toddler ages, but it will become mature and emerge as the "United States of Europe" some day in the not too distant future. So, why shouldn't we have our own armed forces? In the past 15 Years NATO members have only had the sole purpose to get their a$$es shot off for U.S. Gov' interests and to clean up the mess & rubble the GI's have left behind.

 

 

I just don't want it. It does not fit european history, it does not fit my own vision of what the continent is. I'm even hostile to European Union. We are not the US, born in the hope of freedom and united for it.

Nowadays so-called "european idea" is just some dreams from statist technocrats whose main purpose is to limit more and more member states rights to govern themselves in the way they want. US states are more free within the Union that we are in the EU. And those people aren't even elected!

The very fundations of the EU are bad. That would be Union would be nothing but some tyrannical supra-governement whose goal would be to suppress any national feeling in exchange for an artificial and progressist european ideal. What ideal? The one wehre Ireland shall revote because when asked, people might only say "yes"? The right to forbid death penalty, legalize abortion, decrete the size of potatoes, prices in restaurants, press rules or whatever within the whole union? There are and would be no more national freedom. That's not a political construction, build for greatest strength, as the EU do not want to stand up strong for freedom and the western world. That's an ideological one, whose goal is to bring people to bright progressive days by intervening undemocraticaly in their daily lifes and to kneel down before any outside danger in profound self-hate (hence the antiamericanism, as US do dare to be still proud! What a sin! )

 

Last but not least, I don't think that nations that existed for millenia (France, England...) or centuries, and that are so differents (germanic, romans, slavic nations) should and could unit themselves. The US had english, a common struggle and a common identity background. Europe does not and never will. Do a free-market zone as you want, two tumbs up! But I will never accept any EU federation or army. Actually not on the current basis.

Speak of confederate states, with only minimal things in the confederation hands (the less things, the less oppression)and I might be more interested.

 

 

Nowadays NATO to me seems somewhat outdated; the "commie" threat is gone, the cold war also. New enemies had to be spotted to keep the machine oiled and running, the cards have been shuffled again. There are new "major" players and the U.S. have proven that they are able to undertake large-scale operations on their own. So do we really need "NATO" anymore?

I guess eastern europeans, who still understand the true meaning of independence and freedom do bring a clear answer: their priority was and still is NATO, before the EU. Why? because they know NATO is crucial to security; because they know they can't hope for any help from western europe who'd rather surrender than to fight anybody.

 

 

Speaking as a proud supporter of the European idea, I'd say no and vote "Yes" for a European Army.

 

(While of course our weak-kneed "Eurocrats", lacking of energy and imagination will care for the "slowing-down" process themselves. )

 

Hope I didn't insult anybody, Cheers!

Speaking as a strong anti-EU believing that the continent should follow Switzerland path in being not involved in world matters, letting the more rationnal organisation (nation-state) stand, and just enjoy our prosperity.

Edited July 4, 2008 by Emp_Palpatine

[sparkomatic 7]

EU is rather scary...cant seem to forget that every time the Europeans get together in some sort of Pact or Treaty or Union, then the rest of the world ends up losing blood after not a long while...

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

BearKiller

 

Why a European Army would have to stand "against" Ussia I don't know. Eurarmy would be just another army among many (although no standing armies are best). But if it did ever stand against Ussia, it might be for a good reason since its not like we follow our Constitution anymore.

 

Best, an independent Euro Army would maybe see the development and fielding of entire new independent technology and machinery. I for one am Stoked that history gave us Drakens, Mirages, and Lightnings instead of everybody using stock F-104 or F-4.

 

...although if more nations had used F-106 that would always be a good thing.

[Bearkiller72 0]

Right. I read your answers and have to say, I'm pleased to get such results! Originally I planned not to answer, but some things are better said...

 

We are not the US, born in the hope of freedom and united for it.[/endquote]

 

Right.We ain't. But we are an assembly of countries that has fought wars against each other for the last 10 centuries (that's more than thousand years, mind you!).

Why shouldn't there be a time when we crazy dudes shake hands and recognize each other?

Remember, that's something that's been going on since the late '40's!

Something that would have been an impossibility 100 years ago!

Remember Churchill (post-war), De Gaulle and Adenauer?

There's a chance of a lifetime, let's roll and use it!

 

Nowadays so-called "european idea" is just some dreams from statist technocrats whose main purpose is to limit more and more member states rights to govern themselves in the way they want.[/endquote]

 

That is what's always going to happen in a union, that's what happened to the American states in 1776, to the French in 1789 and to the Germans in 1871.

 

US states are more free within the Union that we are in the EU. And those people aren't even elected![/endquote]

 

They aren't? That's something new to me... Are they something like Breshnew? Elected for life? What do you mean by that? And how do you define freedom within a union, please give an example. And please remember, the U.S. nowadays is a grown structure, the E.U. is still defining it's structure... as I said "toddler ages".

 

The very fundations of the EU are bad. That would be Union would be nothing but some tyrannical supra-governement whose goal would be to suppress any national feeling in exchange for an artificial and progressist european ideal.[/endquote]

 

That's rather short-sighted. Imagine yourself back in 1775, somewhere in Massachussetts, and somebody approached you and talked about the idea of having a self-governed state, not dependent on the British "Motherland".

What would you have said? Perhaps this: "No way, governing all these states without the King's consent might end up in chaos!"

 

And when I see suburbs of Paris burning, Spanish trucks block major highways, massed protesters going against the G8 summit in Germany, there is something burning in the soul of our people, a fire even the most conservatists in Bruxelles can't ignore.

Don't you be too fast in your judgement...

 

Something has changed around here, people realize that they are not only close to each other, they are depending...

Parting this "Euro-Thing" is impossible, uniting it further takes time, but eventually will work out.

 

Dude, take off your shades, this is the 21st century, something new is glooming on the horizon; I don't know if it's good or bad for the world, but I'm absolutely sure, it's gonna be amazing! Just give it time and let go of your cold-war resentments.

Don't become a relic of the past...

 

P.S. just for your relaxation: politicians are all the same, all over the world; they're selfish egomaniacs, no matter if they're Europeans, Americans, Asians or Arabs!

[Emp_Palpatine 501]

Right. I read your answers and have to say, I'm pleased to get such results! Originally I planned not to answer, but some things are better said...

Indeed. And don't mind my answer too! Disagree and debate is not lack of respect and estime! :yes:

 

Right.We ain't. But we are an assembly of countries that has fought wars against each other for the last 10 centuries (that's more than thousand years, mind you!).

Why shouldn't there be a time when we crazy dudes shake hands and recognize each other?

Remember, that's something that's been going on since the late '40's!

Something that would have been an impossibility 100 years ago!

Remember Churchill (post-war), De Gaulle and Adenauer?

There's a chance of a lifetime, let's roll and use it!

 

Nowadays so-called "european idea" is just some dreams from statist technocrats whose main purpose is to limit more and more member states rights to govern themselves in the way they want.

 

Please understand me correctly: being opposed to the EU does not mean "hey, let's frak up Spain, UK, or Germany! Let's make war in Europe!" That's a common legend used in pro-EU propaganda: that EEC/EU did bring peace. That's an utter nonsense. What bring peace between Europeans was MAD, US/Nato and the soviet threat: we had better to do than pissing each other off, that is protecting ourselves from Soviets.

 

No problem at all with reconciliation, alliance and friendship. But it's not because I'm no at ease with my former ennemy that I had to marry him.

 

 

That is what's always going to happen in a union, that's what happened to the American states in 1776, to the French in 1789 and to the Germans in 1871.

 

More or less. France was never a federal state, so it's pointless here. (BTW, provinces were ways more free before the revolution [which should be understood as an error that prevented us from following a british-like evolution, more stable and peacefull] )

Germans had nazism that destroyed the 2nd Reich (States, from what I know, were quite free in it, Bavaria even had its own diplomatic network), the new federalism is way more intrusive.

 

They aren't? That's something new to me... Are they something like Breshnew? Elected for life? What do you mean by that? And how do you define freedom within a union, please give an example. And please remember, the U.S. nowadays is a grown structure, the E.U. is still defining it's structure... as I said "toddler ages".

Have you ever voted for Baroso?

You are indeed using an interesting example, that of Soviet Union. Just like soviet Union, we have recurrent election for a mock parliament who can only give some advices. Like in Soviet Union, what count is what the politburo (ie Commission) wants. See Ireland case (or France, Netherlands, Denmark...): they did reject the treaty? All right, let's make vote again. And again. And again! Until the right answer comes.

You say the EU is still defining itself. I do agree. But I do think too that it's defining itself in a way I do not like. As I said before: if the EU were an almost non-interventionnist Confederation (let's say money, free trade), I wouldn't have much to say against it. It's not the case. It is a technocratic structure, dominated by liberal (in the US sense) ideological crusaders who think they have the duty to do what they want for the realization of their European dream. If the people disagree, let's change the people!

If the Union is to grow, ho my, I'm afraid! It is nowaday so disrespectful of States rights and people choices that I can't just imagine what it could be if it has to be mature.

 

That's rather short-sighted. Imagine yourself back in 1775, somewhere in Massachussetts, and somebody approached you and talked about the idea of having a self-governed state, not dependent on the British "Motherland".

What would you have said? Perhaps this: "No way, governing all these states without the King's consent might end up in chaos!"

 

 

But the fact is that we are not in 1775. And that is true for the EU ideal too. And that's why it is doomed: we are not in 1775, 'cause there is no popular support for the EU, because the EU is no longer a solution but a problem, because if we were in 1775, the EU may play the King's role (acting against local traditions, wills and institutions... as it does).

 

And when I see suburbs of Paris burning, Spanish trucks block major highways, massed protesters going against the G8 summit in Germany, there is something burning in the soul of our people, a fire even the most conservatists in Bruxelles can't ignore.

Don't you be too fast in your judgement...

 

Something has changed around here, people realize that they are not only close to each other, they are depending...

Parting this "Euro-Thing" is impossible, uniting it further takes time, but eventually will work out.

 

Dude, take off your shades, this is the 21st century, something new is glooming on the horizon; I don't know if it's good or bad for the world, but I'm absolutely sure, it's gonna be amazing! Just give it time and let go of your cold-war resentments.

Don't become a relic of the past...

 

P.S. just for your relaxation: politicians are all the same, all over the world; they're selfish egomaniacs, no matter if they're Europeans, Americans, Asians or Arabs!

So say we all for politcians!

By the way, I don't understand you point: melting french ethnic uprisings with Spanish strikes and radicals demonstrations... Speaking of what I know, french uprisings, wether the state is french or european won't change anything in their open rebellion against law. That's no cry of despair but power struggles between the states and gangs. A fight the state lost. More generally, I don't think the EU is a king of hope for most people.

The fact is: would french or italian be willing to die for protecting Latvia? I don't think so. The EU institutions wouldn't even want to fight.

 

This is the 21st century? That's right! Europe's times are over. Just have a look: no babies, or instability generating immigration; poor military, ill-oriented and suicidal diplomacy, self-hate of its own values and history... You won't make a giant assembling ill limbs and senile spirits. Let's stand by stronger friends and civilization brethern instead of losing our time with EU.

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2p1BseAzgS4

"I'm Palpat and I approve this video".

[SayethWhaaaa 245]

Oh, and it wasn't just 20 Years, it was 45+ years

 

I was just talking about the time since the cold war began to thaw. Since the late 80s

 

 

EU is rather scary...cant seem to forget that every time the Europeans get together in some sort of Pact or Treaty or Union, then the rest of the world ends up losing blood after not a long while...

 

I dunno about that. Where I work, EU policy has made my job a hell of a lot easier. When we have to send international students from our university on exchange to EU nations, current EU policy (which requires each European University to use the same credit transfer scheme: ECTS) cuts out about 75% of my wasted time in waiting for individual unis to send me their equivelent criteria, assess our students, assign them a credit rating for transfer, blah blah blah, it's boring stuff. Suffice to say, what used to take close to a week, takes only a few hours now.

 

That said, the bureaucracy that was once there has probably only just shifted elsewhere. Like Agriculture or some kind of naming comittee empowered to restructure the selection process for inter-organisational meeting groups who discuss the re-evaluation of documents to be issued after the latest round of talks encompassing the EADS's chair comittee's inability to find a suitable naming convention to use in the next round of press releases outlining future strategies and sustainable practises that's being co-ordinatd with the aforementioned inter-organisational meeting groups on what prime factors will accounted for in the latest press release on why the A-400M is taking so-goddamned-long to enter service...

[Bearkiller72 0]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2p1BseAzgS4

"I'm Palpat and I approve this video".

[/endquote]

 

And we, the beariest of the Bearkiller's say: some really interesting points, this man has. Some have to be proven, some are already true, I sadly admit.

 

But he makes one mistake: the S.U. was a militia governed, totaliaristic state, similar to the 3rd Reich.

The E.U. is not, all it's member states are democratic. "We, the people", have the ability, the means and the chance, to change a few major things, something people in the U.S.S.R. couldn't.

 

But I'm afraid, "we, the people", won't change anything, because getting politically active has gotten out of fashion since 1980. Well, not true. Only the numbers have shrunk, Parka's are out of fashion and if you're getting active in the political field nowadays, you do so because of the bucks you'll get. Nothing more, nothing else (matters).

 

Like German comedian Ingo Appelt once said: "Whoah, there they are, half a million young people, gathering on the streets of Berlin and you think, wow, this is revolution! Frak! Love Parade! Butskbutskbutsk! Revolution just gets you out of beat! Love Parade! Pah!"

 

The scary alternative is, and that's where you and the Russian gentleman are absolutely right, a "Big-Brother" state, like in "1984".

But if you look around the globe you will see, that other states are going the same direction, legitimizing this by pointing to the danger of terrorism (this does not apply to the U.S.A. exclusively, the Russians and the Chinese have similar terms, if not the same. "Goldstein" is all around")

There is, of course, a real threat from terrorists all over the world, but who can say whether the bomb some cop found is really signed with Osama's signature...

 

I'll stop here, else I lose myself in my more deeper fears of a global "Oceania"...

 

Anyway, it's been a pleasure having this discussion with you, let's hope for the best and expect the worst, for our future!

 

^S! and all the best for you,

Bearkiller72!