Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sounds like France's excursion in Libya didn't sell enough Rafale Fighter Jets. Nothing like a mini-war to show of your "defense" hardware.
Believe it or not, France is only second to the US in their ability to project military power to pretty much any spot on the globe. Both their navy and air force are top notch operations.
I think in terms of heavy airlift capability (C-17), chinook heavy lift helicopters and tanker aircraft the RAF is better equipped, although the Royal Navy has a capability gap at the moment whilst it awaits the launch of the new Queen Eizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers.
Then again Britain doesn't need an Aircraft Carrier to bomb Syria there is an RAF Base (RAF Akrotiri) on the island of Cyprus just off the Syrian Coast.
When they decide to match what the US puts into the NATO budget (currently over $700 million) yearly, then maybe they can take a leadership role in NATO.
When they decide to match what the US puts into the NATO budget (currently over $700 million) yearly, then maybe they can take a leadership role in NATO.
It would make far more sense for us to our funding of NATO to below that of France.
It's depressing to see that certain progressives want to involve this country into yet another (illegal?) military intervention in the ME. How many more people do you want this country to murder?
When they decide to match what the US puts into the NATO budget (currently over $700 million) yearly, then maybe they can take a leadership role in NATO.
I don't think the EU is going to more than double it's GDP defence expenditure levels to those of the US, which accounts for half of all global military expenditure.
The EU does have substantial forces though, and through better pooling of resources, better intergration and a better command structure, could do a lot more with the resources it already has.
This would however mean certain nations such as Germany and some other EU Nations getting more involved in NATO operations and the development of European capabilities.
It is countries like Germany that are the problem not the French.
.....which accounts for half of all global military expenditure.
The US puts in nearly 22% by itself. France, Britain and Germany average about 11% each and they've been cutting their expenditures while the US has been increasing.
Quote:
It is countries like Germany that are the problem not the French.
No its the other way around. Post WW2 France and Britain have caused most of the problems in the ME (and northern Africa) playing both sides of the coin and making multiple back door deals over the years while the US paid with their blood and F&B profited.
The US puts in nearly 22% by itself. France, Britain and Germany average about 11% each and they've been cutting their expenditures while the US has been increasing.
The US accounts for half the global military expenditure by itself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilVA
No its the other way around. Post WW2 France and Britain have caused most of the problems in the ME (and northern Africa) playing both sides of the coin and making multiple back door deals over the years while the US paid with their blood and F&B profited.
I was talking about Germany and some other European countries not pulling their weight in terms of military participation in both NATO and Europe.
I am not sure what back door deals Britain and France are supposed to have done, but in terms of back door deals and indeed stupidity you need look no further than US Foreign Policy, remember it's backing of Iraq in the Iran/Iraq war and other such great blunders. Indeed the US hasn't been able to keep out of Post WW2 Middle Eastern Politics including it's very public backing of the Israeli's.
It was Britain who refused to back the US led UN plan for the patitioning of Palestine and subsequent establishment of a Jewish homeland back in 1947 and who was criticised by the US for trying to stop mass Jewish immigration.
The US under Truman were influential in UN plans to push ahead with the creation of a Jewish state, which was created in 1947, against the wishes of the British who warned of possible future instability in the area due to partitioning of Palestine in to seperate Arab and Jewish areas, as well as the problems the establishment of a Jewish homeland might cause in the region.
Convinced that partition was unworkable, the British refused to assist the UN in any way that might require British forces to remain on Palestinian soil (to implement it) or turn their army into a target for Arab forces.
Britain abstained from the 1947 UN Vote to create a Jewish Homeland (Israel) much to the annoyance of Truman and the US Administration. However a post war impoversished Britain, had little choice but to go along with American plans, despite voicing her objections.
If anyone has manipulated events and used back door deals it is the American State Department and US Government itself. Then again even the US State Department warned Truman about the partitioning of Palestine.
A lot of this hatred of the US and terrorism is related to that one decision in 1947, with numerous parties warning Truman, his administration and the UN about the possible consequences but to no avail.
It was Britain who refused to back the US led UN plan for the patitioning of Palestine and subsequent establishment of a Jewish homeland back in 1947 and who was criticised by the US for trying to stop mass Jewish immigration.
The US under Truman were influential in UN plans to push ahead with the creation of a Jewish state, which was created in 1947, against the wishes of the British who warned of possible future instability in the area due to partitioning of Palestine in to seperate Arab and Jewish areas, as well as the problems the establishment of a Jewish homeland might cause in the region.
Convinced that partition was unworkable, the British refused to assist the UN in any way that might require British forces to remain on Palestinian soil (to implement it) or turn their army into a target for Arab forces.
Britain abstained from the 1947 UN Vote to create a Jewish Homeland (Israel) much to the annoyance of Truman and the US Administration. However a post war impoversished Britain, had little choice but to go along with American plans, despite voicing her objections.
If anyone has manipulated events and used back door deals it is the American State Department and US Government itself. Then again even the US State Department warned Truman about the partitioning of Palestine.
A lot of this hatred of the US and terrorism is related to that one decision in 1947, with numerous parties warning Truman, his administration and the UN about the possible consequences but to no avail.
As proven by all these Arab Springs, none of it has anything to do with Israel or the Jews at this point. Israel is being used as a focal point for islamists to give muslims the perception of Israel being their enemy which is far from the reality of it.
The French and the British have been in control in some way or another ever since the fall of the Ottoman Empire. WW2 was just a bump in the road. Most of the Arab countries came into being after WW2 with the back door deals from France and Britain. All you have to do is read the French Mandate after WW1 and follow it through history to know where the treuth lies. If you require a history lesson there is plenty of information on the net that I don't need to give the cliff notes version here.
As proven by all these Arab Springs, none of it has anything to do with Israel or the Jews at this point. Israel is being used as a focal point for islamists to give muslims the perception of Israel being their enemy which is far from the reality of it.
The French and the British have been in control in some way or another ever since the fall of the Ottoman Empire. WW2 was just a bump in the road. Most of the Arab countries came into being after WW2 with the back door deals from France and Britain. All you have to do is read the French Mandate after WW1 and follow it through history to know where the treuth lies. If you require a history lesson there is plenty of information on the net that I don't need to give the cliff notes version here.
The Arab Spring involved getting rid of lots of dictators, they may well yet be replaced by Islamic Regimes. In terms of Israel it's creation did make the area a lot less stable, and the way the Palestinian people have been treated including forcible removable from their homes and property has helped unite the Islamic world in a common cause.
In terms of Britain we wanted out of the Palestinian Mandate, and we handed over responcibility to the UN. We did warn that given our experience in the area, which included the murder of British forces, that the splitting of Palestine could cause instaility in the area, and that we would not become involved in such a move or support it. Both the French and British took mandates in order to secure peace in the area following the defeat of the Otterman Empire in 1918 and both reliquished power in the 1940's, both having worked with the Arabs to try to secure peace in the region.
In terms of the area, there has been conflict over many thousands of years, and no I don't need a history lesson. Although I think you do, as it's American involvement in the middle east that has caused the most problems in the post war era and not declining powers such as the French and British who passed on the baton to the UN many decades ago.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
