France's History of Military Failure

[Dunenewt]

I did not say that, I think they should be a permanent member...

PS:

Whoa re the non permanent ones at the moment?

[Gobalopper]

Hmm Angola, Spain, Pakistan... Germany... there is one more.

Chile is the other.

The older ones are:

Bulgaria, Cameroon, Guinea, Mexico, and Syria

Here is a list:

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/membship/mem2.htm

[Dunenewt]

lol...that cracks me up

Angola)Well...just look at there recent history

Germany)Isn't this a SECURITY council....if so what are they doing

Pakistan)Can't say anything bad incase they nuke me

Spain)Good country - I see why they support the War on Terrorism as they have their own problems like the ETA so hopefully US will recognise that Spain could do with some help in their individual war

[SurlyPIG]

Nema, I understand that their proximity and their history is a huge factor in their history, but their current military isn't much better. I don't know much about their air force but their army is awful. Because of strict regulations enforced on the military leaders, the French Army doesn't get enough of the toughening, down-in-the-dirt type of training. Even their peacekeeping forces have been failures, and though most UNPK missions have been less than successful as of late, France has been particularly ineffective. UNPROFOR for example. They need NATO backup. They have a good navy, I'll give them that, and they should absolutely participate in things such as the coming (possibly) war on Iraq and they did participate in the war of Afghanistan. But they don't even need to be a temporary member of the Security Council to play this role, let alone a permanent one.

Gob, at any given time there are 10 non-permanent members of the security council along with the 5 permanent members, USA, Russia, China, Britain and France. The 10 temporary seats are almost token nations from each corner of the globe. I mean, they've even had Yemen on the council. Yemen! A lot of people havn't even heard of Yemen!

Dunenewt, I meant that they've only gone nuclear power in the 90s. I don't think having nukes should qualify you for the security council anyway. I mean what good are nukes going to do you in a peacekeeping mission or a war of liberation? They'd be useless. All they'd do is kill civillians (France is well known for this too).

The whole point is that France is supposedly a pathetic excuse for a country, and that the French people are cowardly idiots who can't fight.

THAT is the kind of hate speech I do not tolerate.

Have you even seen one(1) deragatory comment about France as a nation? This whole thread is about one thing; France's military and military history. He said "Look at all these defeats, how is it they're a permanent member of the Security Council." He didn't say "Stupid Frenchies put fries on cheese."

There is also the fact that Emprworm wants all non-US vassal countries off the Security Council...

Interesting. Have they changed the definition of France from "France" to "All non-US vassal countries"? If not, where did he say this. He hasn't even mentioned Germany, and they're far more vocal about the Iraq issue than France has been. They're on the Security Councill too you know.

there are a dozen nations who should be on there before France.

Such as?

How about Japan? Or Australia? Or South Korea? Or even Germany! Or India? Even small and divided Yugoslavia have much more capable soldiers than france does.

Oh, and Dunenewt, the last thing the world needs is another Charles de Gaulles. He's an elitist and a nationalist who, as you said, hated everyone and everything that wasn't French. He had the nerve, on Canada's 100 birthday, to travel to montreal and start a wave of separatism which prompted the only terrorist attacks Canada has ever seen.

[TMA_1]

you have to remember though that france is a respected and old nation that has a lot of power. Even if they do have a horrible military, they were placed there by people who know more than you or me. Your opinion is worthless to the reality of the matter.

[Acriku]

Hell, the french were at the meeting on StarGate SG-1 where General Hammond told the worldpowers (yes the french were there) about the StarGate, so they gotta amount to something ;)

[Inoculator9]

Lol, that episode is how I base my opinions on every country.

But what does everyone think about the French Foreign Legions actions during WW2? They deserted France and supported Hitler, all except for one platoon or regiment or whatever.

[exatreide]

Perhaps its not the the solders that go, wee wee! surender!

but the generals. maybe france has good solders, just incompent generals leading them.....

[garth]

I think its important for a country like France to be a permanent member on the Security Council to lend some balance to the decision making process.

A voice like theirs urges the cautious path that doesnt just jump right into a situation with all guns blazing.

Also, keep in mind that the Security Council is not designed to wage war, it is designed to maintain peace. That includes diplomacy first and foremost with war as a last result.

[Caid Ivik]

I don't think that any country should have the right to veto any resolution. Especially country, which supports spreading of nuclear armament (maybe not now, but they did).

[Inoculator9]

I have to agree with Shaddam on that one.

[Terror]

[quote author=ExAtreides

[nemafakei]

"But they don't even need to be a temporary member of the Security Council to play this role, let alone a permanent one."

I've now lost track of your point.

You started by saying that France, since it is weak, shouldn't be on the UN Sec. Council. You ended by saying that it had some military strength that it could easily wield from outside the Sec. Council (The deduction from which is that nations with capable militaries need not be the only ones on the Sec. Council).

Why, then, shouldn't France be on the Security Council?

If, because it is weak, how does that affect its capabilities at deciding on the UN's position on things?

[emprworm]

"But they don't even need to be a temporary member of the Security Council to play this role, let alone a permanent one."

I've now lost track of your point.

You started by saying that France, since it is weak, shouldn't be on the UN Sec. Council. You ended by saying that it had some military strength that it could easily wield from outside the Sec. Council (The deduction from which is that nations with capable militaries need not be the only ones on the Sec. Council).

Why, then, shouldn't France be on the Security Council?

If, because it is weak, how does that affect its capabilities at deciding on the UN's position on things?

i saw the same apparant contradiction in his argument. having someone on the security council specifically because they are weak and then making world military decision as to what to do with the lives of other countries soldiers and other countries weapons and armies? Uhhh...I don't think so.

[SurlyPIG]

I've now lost track of your point.

You started by saying that France, since it is weak, shouldn't be on the UN Sec. Council. You ended by saying that it had some military strength that it could easily wield from outside the Sec. Council (The deduction from which is that nations with capable militaries need not be the only ones on the Sec. Council).

I'll re-iterate. France, of the 190 nations or whatever it is in the UN, has a comparatively strong army to the likes of other nations (ie compared to Cambodia). It does not, however, break the 10% mark of country-by-country military comparisons. I don't think you completely understand how the UN works its missions. Decisions come from the security council, but military, humanitarian, medical, and relief personnel and supplies can come from any volunteering country in the UN. My point was, France has too weak a military to be on the Security Council as a permanent member. It does, however, have a superior army to the likes of, say, Vatican City. It has a pretty strong navy. It can contribute this without holding a permanent seat on the Council.

Why, then, shouldn't France be on the Security Council? If, because it is weak, how does that affect its capabilities at deciding on the UN's position on things?

Not because it is weak, but because it is weaker than several other more deserving nations. Military strength is what should determine who is and who isn't on the Security Council. How else are you to decide? If you're going to make the arguement that it's military doesn't and shouldn't effect the way it votes to represent the UN, well why not just stick Cyprus and Azerbaijan on the Security Council? Five permanent members. Each contributes their soldiers, their fighters, their ships. Ten temporary members do the same, to a lesser total and per-capita degree. Why in the world should Oman play a part in deciding when and where British soldiers fight and die? If Oman becomes a temp member (which it inevitably will and probably has been), then so be it. They'll be on the Sec. Council for their two year stay, and have a say in where their greater contribution of soldiers go. I can't think of a reason why the UN should add countries to its SC when they contribute so little or nothing to the sum of the UN forces.

When it comes down to crunch time, It's mostly British and American men and women that will lose life and limb in any war with Iraq. Sure, France will contribute too, but nowhere near the degree the US and UK will. Why, then, should France get such a disproportioned opinion in how British and American soldiers fight and die?

[Edric O]

Not because it is weak, but because it is weaker than several other more deserving nations. Military strength is what should determine who is and who isn't on the Security Council.

Oh, so Nazi Germany, if it still existed, should get a permanent seat on the Security Council?

When it comes down to crunch time, It's mostly British and American men and women that will lose life and limb in any war with Iraq. Sure, France will contribute too, but nowhere near the degree the US and UK will. Why, then, should France get such a disproportioned opinion in how British and American soldiers fight and die?

Last time I checked, the British and Americans want to send their soldiers to die, while France tries to stop them.

And I hope and trust that France will not contribute to any such wars of imperialism and oppression.

[nampigai]

'Not because it is weak, but because it is weaker than several other more deserving nations. Military strength is what should determine who is and who isn't on the Security Council.'

Bullshit, why should this be the main factor?

[Caid Ivik]

Maybe because you cannot ensure peace without army...

[nampigai]

who should be a permanent member then? and how would you see who has the strongest army? UN is a peace organisation not a war organisation. I can't think of anyother allthough I don't like Chirac particular.

[nemafakei]

"Uhhh...I don't think so."

Uhhh... good for you. Question remains.

"Military strength is what should determine who is and who isn't on the Security Council"

But why?

"If you're going to make the arguement that it's military doesn't and shouldn't effect the way it votes to represent the UN, well why not just stick Cyprus and Azerbaijan on the Security Council?"

As long as they are relatively stable countries, not in proximity to the decision in question whoever. Why do we need permenant members?

[Anathema]

We don't need them, but the security council has always been dominated by the winners of the war, and none of those would ever let that change.

[flybyjack76ers1]

France is just saving themselves. They have no need to oppose to the united states except for the fact that their president, Chirak, is a jerk. If it wasnt for the united states france would probably be under communist rule by one of hitlers kids. germany's got a lot of nerve too. all schroeder wants is to keep his power and pamper the green party. SHOW SOME COMPASSION FOR THE U.S.

[nampigai]

Hitler ruled over a communist country???

And I don't think it would be in the U.S.'s intterest to have a communist France.

And what do you mean with compassion, the official statement from EU is they will back up a UN resolution. But if we decide to make an pre-emptive strike against Iraq, we must ask ourself when we should attack others with pre-emptive strikes.

And as for the permenant members, I've been thinking of that question too Nema.

[alejandro]

Spain)Good country - I see why they support the War on Terrorism as they have their own problems like the ETA so hopefully US will recognise that Spain could do with some help in their individual war

Not for a long time, Jed Bush destroy the support 3 days ago, now the goverment is being attacked by everybody in the congress

[emprworm]

'Not because it is weak, but because it is weaker than several other more deserving nations. Military strength is what should determine who is and who isn't on the Security Council.'

Bullshit, why should this be the main factor?

ROFL. Lets assume for a moment, that only weak countries were on the council.

Lets assume that the Security council members were Liechtenstein, Malta, Andorra, Grenada, and The Sovereign Military Order Of Malta.

Lets assume then that these countries are the ones that decide SECURITY issues of the world. Since they have no army and no ability whatsoever to enforce anything - they will rely on what?

Now you really think that the US, CHina, Russia will give a rats #$#$ about what The Sovereign Military Order Of Malta thinks they should do with their military? When you have impotent countries trying to dictatate world security, then you will quickly see that they will be a world laughing stock.

The Sovereign Military Order Of Malta: We, the Security Council of the United Nations declare that the US, CHina, and Great Britian send 100,000 peacekeeping troops into region X to mantain order.

United States, China, Great Britain: Bwaaa-hahaha. Send your own army.

The Sovereign Military Order Of Malta: No, you will comply. We are the security council. If you do not comply with our resolutions, there will be repercussions.

United States, China, Great Britain: Oh? Such as?

The Sovereign Military Order Of Malta: Uhhh......we will ask you a second time.

United States, China, Great Britain: And we will say no a second time. THen what?

The Sovereign Military Order Of Malta: Hmmm....uhhh.... pretty please?

LOL + LOL + ROFL

yea! Lets let weak countries w/o militaries order world security and pass resolutions that other countries are required to follow. See what happens when the US, China, GB, and Russia just simply leave the UN. You have no power...none...zippo...unless you have the strength to enforce it.

Kind of having a country with 200 million population and a police force of 10. LIke anyone is going to care about what the "cops" say.