France seeks to Rejoin NATO Military Force
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Detroit MI
Age: 66
Posts: 1,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They want to protect their language from being replaced by "Americanese."
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Scotland
Age: 45
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well of course there will be sharing of language. Many english words are derived from french also. That is not the point. Of course the word football in the sense we are talking about can hardly be described as Americanese. *What I really mean here is that America is now the motivational force behind the English language in the world for obvious reasons.*
I'm sure the french military understand the possible benefits of clear and concise radio communications with their allies. I would have thought that there must be some better reason for them not to take this advantage other than, that they are just being french.
I'm sure the french military understand the possible benefits of clear and concise radio communications with their allies. I would have thought that there must be some better reason for them not to take this advantage other than, that they are just being french.
Last edited by Caspian237; 14th Sep 2007 at 00:05. Reason: Added * - *
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Detroit MI
Age: 66
Posts: 1,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In terms of NATO they really don't have "allies".
The French have, clearly, chosen to go their own route for their own reasons for a few decades now. Their "route" has been proven to be a route that has conflicted with many of NATO's initiatives. Now, all of a sudden, they want to play...
If Europeans chose to "accept them back into the fold" I believe you will see exactly why the "Freedom Fries" attitude came to be.
The French are the _most_ cynical bunch of weiners in Europe. They "opt out" of NATO, (thus saving themselves billions of francs in "contributions"), while being surrounded, (and therefore protected by), NATO countries. They wouldn't have done that had they bordered a Warsaw Pact country in the first place.
They have lived off NATO for decades, protected by us, at no cost. When they carry the burden of NATO, in it's entirety for five years, (men, equipment and money), and do it effectively without intervention by the rest of us then they should be considered for entry to NATO.... Until then I believe NATO should grant free passage to France for anyone who choses to attack them... That's not unreasonable... They can't be allowed to hide behind us... But they could pay us to not allow that "free passage".
I have $1000 says they would run if given that "deal"... and it is a good deal for the protection they have had!!!
The French have, clearly, chosen to go their own route for their own reasons for a few decades now. Their "route" has been proven to be a route that has conflicted with many of NATO's initiatives. Now, all of a sudden, they want to play...
If Europeans chose to "accept them back into the fold" I believe you will see exactly why the "Freedom Fries" attitude came to be.
The French are the _most_ cynical bunch of weiners in Europe. They "opt out" of NATO, (thus saving themselves billions of francs in "contributions"), while being surrounded, (and therefore protected by), NATO countries. They wouldn't have done that had they bordered a Warsaw Pact country in the first place.
They have lived off NATO for decades, protected by us, at no cost. When they carry the burden of NATO, in it's entirety for five years, (men, equipment and money), and do it effectively without intervention by the rest of us then they should be considered for entry to NATO.... Until then I believe NATO should grant free passage to France for anyone who choses to attack them... That's not unreasonable... They can't be allowed to hide behind us... But they could pay us to not allow that "free passage".
I have $1000 says they would run if given that "deal"... and it is a good deal for the protection they have had!!!
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Scotland
Age: 45
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airborne, you make a fantastic point that I had not considered. Was this a concerted effort by the French to save money and get defense on the cheap or was it just a quirk of geography?
I understood from earlier posts that they did not completely withdraw from the NATO alliance but from the upper command structure and that they would have been involved in NATO's defense of Europe if the worst came to the worst. I bow to your knowledge on how much they would have saved because I frankly know nothing on this topic.
Please don't dismiss my arguement about french fears over their identity though. There have been many initiatives in France from the military/business language restrictions to limiting the amount of foreign movies that appear in French cinemas etc.
I understood from earlier posts that they did not completely withdraw from the NATO alliance but from the upper command structure and that they would have been involved in NATO's defense of Europe if the worst came to the worst. I bow to your knowledge on how much they would have saved because I frankly know nothing on this topic.
Please don't dismiss my arguement about french fears over their identity though. There have been many initiatives in France from the military/business language restrictions to limiting the amount of foreign movies that appear in French cinemas etc.
Last edited by Caspian237; 14th Sep 2007 at 01:27. Reason: Spelling
The French do go to great lengths to protect the lingo, via L’Académie Française. This august body is officially responsible for deliberating on language use, and they get terribly miffed at the creeping anglicisation of day-to-day speech.
When the Sony Walkman became popular, in response to the fact that the nation talked about 'Le Walkman', L’Académie Française, bless 'em, dug through the dictionary of long-obsolete words and imposed an official word upon the nation from this list (IIRC, it was 'Baladeur' which was a wandering minstrel, which seemed vaguely relevant).
They've also tried to prevent the government from using the term 'La Ministre' to refer to female government ministers, since the correct gender for 'Ministre' is masculine, and if you start on the slippery slope of fiddling about with word genders, you'll be speaking Americanised English before you know it.
Of course, being French, the populace usually takes note of the fact that there's a new official word they're to use and promptly ignore it.
When the Sony Walkman became popular, in response to the fact that the nation talked about 'Le Walkman', L’Académie Française, bless 'em, dug through the dictionary of long-obsolete words and imposed an official word upon the nation from this list (IIRC, it was 'Baladeur' which was a wandering minstrel, which seemed vaguely relevant).
They've also tried to prevent the government from using the term 'La Ministre' to refer to female government ministers, since the correct gender for 'Ministre' is masculine, and if you start on the slippery slope of fiddling about with word genders, you'll be speaking Americanised English before you know it.
Of course, being French, the populace usually takes note of the fact that there's a new official word they're to use and promptly ignore it.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Scotland
Age: 45
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi, discus2. I like the French and think they are ..erm.. misunderstood. I think Archimedes was able to express in more eloquent terms something that I've been rolling around all night.
I also admire their bravery and nerve after personally witnessing Parisian driving this week!! I think they must get one lesson only. The instuctions are: This is your horn and these are your bumpers, now go, aller, aller, vite, vite.
I also admire their bravery and nerve after personally witnessing Parisian driving this week!! I think they must get one lesson only. The instuctions are: This is your horn and these are your bumpers, now go, aller, aller, vite, vite.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Annapolis, MD
Age: 86
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They opted out in the first place, and they should now stay out. They have nothing, bring nothing, and we don't need them.
Can't trust them anyway. Seem to remember that they were providing technical support to Argentina for the Exocet while we were busy fighting a war. Nothing surprising there.
Bob C
Can't trust them anyway. Seem to remember that they were providing technical support to Argentina for the Exocet while we were busy fighting a war. Nothing surprising there.
Bob C
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
While this may be true in many cases it is apparently not true of even seeming French words.
I have it on good authority that what is wrong with the French, according to George Dubya, is that they do not have a word for entrepreneur.
Yes, Him
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: West Sussex, UK
Posts: 2,689
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What do the Rosbeefs that have done exchange postings with the Frogs think? Could they easily integrate? Are their procedures much different, (if at all) from NATO?
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Devon, England
Posts: 816
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They have vetoed against pretty much all of our actions in the past and then in some, joined us (Balkans) to a lesser extent.
They have helped out many countries we have been in conflict with (Okay so have we
)
They refuse the US bombers to fly over their airspace making them fly from the UK around Portugal and then up the Med Sea...
They refuse to talk English on the radio and when they do talk English because they are in British airspace, they cannot be understood because they are not used to speaking it.
But, even though they are not in NATO, they still train their pilots with NATO every week with TLP and in larger exercises such as Neptune Warrior (JMC). I'm surprised they even go as far as doing FOST courses in the UK...
They have capable forces in regards to equipment but are afraid to use it. They only conduct operations with the UN of which are not offensive and so why do they need all these flashy new equipment they are buying?
They have helped out many countries we have been in conflict with (Okay so have we
)They refuse the US bombers to fly over their airspace making them fly from the UK around Portugal and then up the Med Sea...
They refuse to talk English on the radio and when they do talk English because they are in British airspace, they cannot be understood because they are not used to speaking it.
But, even though they are not in NATO, they still train their pilots with NATO every week with TLP and in larger exercises such as Neptune Warrior (JMC). I'm surprised they even go as far as doing FOST courses in the UK...
They have capable forces in regards to equipment but are afraid to use it. They only conduct operations with the UN of which are not offensive and so why do they need all these flashy new equipment they are buying?
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 76
Posts: 1,561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beggars can't be choosers, but....
The following has been touch-typed on a French keyboard....
I think the ideq of the French re!joining NQTO is q good one even though there ,ight be so,e prqcticql objections: Not leqst thew do see, to stick to French zhen using English ,ight be the better; sqfer option:
I q, presentlw eqring q crust qs q pilot in q ,ixed Frqncophone/English environ,ent: One is often reduced to guessing zhqt thqt other qircrqft is up to zhen he is co,,unicqting zith the Tozer in French: Self!preservqtion hqs led ,e to leqrn q bit of bqsic French but even so::::
That aside they do seem to have a fair number of completely mad bastards who should prove useful in a scrap. Why not be big about this, ignore past politics and welcome them back into NATO? Just an idea, there....
I think the ideq of the French re!joining NQTO is q good one even though there ,ight be so,e prqcticql objections: Not leqst thew do see, to stick to French zhen using English ,ight be the better; sqfer option:
I q, presentlw eqring q crust qs q pilot in q ,ixed Frqncophone/English environ,ent: One is often reduced to guessing zhqt thqt other qircrqft is up to zhen he is co,,unicqting zith the Tozer in French: Self!preservqtion hqs led ,e to leqrn q bit of bqsic French but even so::::
That aside they do seem to have a fair number of completely mad bastards who should prove useful in a scrap. Why not be big about this, ignore past politics and welcome them back into NATO? Just an idea, there....
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
The French have very effective forces and they have been, and are still being, deployed operationally. They have an extensive record of operations in various Francophone regions of Africa. They exercise frequently with NATO forces and are the lead country in major projects such as NATO ACCS.
However.
They have their own agenda. They wanted an integrated EU military force, and undoubtedly still do. I have no doubts they would insist on several of the higher ranking NATO posts and would campaign to make it a more European force and to supplant the USA as the lead nation on many projects and technology programmes.
I see no need to upset the applecart. I can see no major problems within NATO or with the current means of coordinating their forces which would require their entry, whilst I can see many potential problems subsequent to their entry.
If it ain't broke - don't fix it.
However.
They have their own agenda. They wanted an integrated EU military force, and undoubtedly still do. I have no doubts they would insist on several of the higher ranking NATO posts and would campaign to make it a more European force and to supplant the USA as the lead nation on many projects and technology programmes.
I see no need to upset the applecart. I can see no major problems within NATO or with the current means of coordinating their forces which would require their entry, whilst I can see many potential problems subsequent to their entry.
If it ain't broke - don't fix it.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Uk
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Whilst the French have butted heads with the US and other NATO countries in the past over many issues perhaps now is the time to play the big man and let then back into the military wing of NATO unconditionally."
i suspect the U.S. wouldn't object to that
but why should they accede to a list of demands, when the french aren't needed in the miltary wing of Nato?
They've asked the same question they did in 1997 and i suspect they'll get the same answer
i suspect the U.S. wouldn't object to that
but why should they accede to a list of demands, when the french aren't needed in the miltary wing of Nato?
They've asked the same question they did in 1997 and i suspect they'll get the same answer
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Actually there was a time when they had been involved in more, and more intense, conflicts since WW2 than ourselves or the Americans.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Detroit MI
Age: 66
Posts: 1,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In fairness to the French, (and you have no idea how much I hate to be fair to the bastiges... 
), with regard to the Exocet issue during the FI they had actually already given the Argies the training they needed and when the British Task Force were in range they began to give us data on how to evade the Exocets... So they don't get credit, but they shouldn't be castigated for it either.
When all is said and done there are three issues that need "attention".
1. The question of "why now?" needs to be satisfactorily answered. IMO, the French are not above having some kind of deal with Iran that requires them to "call off the dogs" in return for X. If they get any kind of say in NATO policy they can affect decisions that might benefit Iran. (That's just an off the wall example to make a point...).
2. Who benefits? NATO, clearly hasn't needed the French at any time to be an effective deterrent so what are the French bringing to the table today that we need? Nothing of any great import I would suggest since the need for NATO in it's classic sense is significantly reduced, (unless and until China starts rattling it's swords). Thus, it has to be the French benefiting which goes back to the "Why now?" question above.
3. Lastly, there's a considerable trust issue. We have witnessed the French on the UN security council seemingly gratuitously blocking actions that many of the NATO nations wish to take only to find out later that they were dealing, (heavily), with the "enemy". I don't trust them and many people I know don't either... and sensible people do not fight alongside a person they don't trust...
Caspian:
Point taken... But boy, have they dug themselves a huge hole with their immigration policies of the last twenty years... 
), with regard to the Exocet issue during the FI they had actually already given the Argies the training they needed and when the British Task Force were in range they began to give us data on how to evade the Exocets... So they don't get credit, but they shouldn't be castigated for it either.When all is said and done there are three issues that need "attention".
1. The question of "why now?" needs to be satisfactorily answered. IMO, the French are not above having some kind of deal with Iran that requires them to "call off the dogs" in return for X. If they get any kind of say in NATO policy they can affect decisions that might benefit Iran. (That's just an off the wall example to make a point...).
2. Who benefits? NATO, clearly hasn't needed the French at any time to be an effective deterrent so what are the French bringing to the table today that we need? Nothing of any great import I would suggest since the need for NATO in it's classic sense is significantly reduced, (unless and until China starts rattling it's swords). Thus, it has to be the French benefiting which goes back to the "Why now?" question above.
3. Lastly, there's a considerable trust issue. We have witnessed the French on the UN security council seemingly gratuitously blocking actions that many of the NATO nations wish to take only to find out later that they were dealing, (heavily), with the "enemy". I don't trust them and many people I know don't either... and sensible people do not fight alongside a person they don't trust...
Caspian:
Please don't dismiss my arguement about french fears over their identity though.