• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

France returns to NATO

kaya'08

kaya'08

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 25, 2008
Messages
6,363
Reaction score
1,318
Location
British Turk
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
BBC NEWS | Europe | France ends four-decade Nato rift

French President Nicolas Sarkozy has announced his country is to return to Nato's military command, reversing four decades of self-imposed exile.

Mr Sarkozy confirmed the decision in a speech to defence experts at the Ecole Militaire staff college in Paris.

President Charles de Gaulle pulled France out of Nato's integrated military command in 1966, saying it undermined France's sovereignty.

Critics say France will now be no more than "a clone of Great Britain".
Click to expand...

What does that mean? As in, it will be dragged into the US wars like GB?
 
kaya'08 said:
What does that mean? As in, it will be dragged into the US wars like GB?
Click to expand...
It means that NATO will be that much weaker and less effective.
 
No, it means they get to go to war.

It means, they get to. :2razz:
 
kaya'08 said:
What does that mean? As in, it will be dragged into the US wars like GB?
Click to expand...

It means more French weapons will be surrendered to the enemy, and used against American & British troops.
 
I never even knew it was out of NATO military o_O
 
Yeah in 1966 they opted out.
It means that NATO will be that much weaker and less effective.
Click to expand...

So what does that have anything to do with France being a replica of GB? Your answering a question i didnt even ask.
 
kaya'08 said:
Yeah in 1966 they opted out.


So what does that have anything to do with France being a replica of GB? Your answering a question i didnt even ask.
Click to expand...
You asked "what does it mean?"
 
France left NATO because they felt that a tri-polar world was inherently more balanced then a bi-polar world. The theory was that two major powers would never go to war with each other without having secured the support of the third major power.

Does anyone here think that lacking the support of France would have stopped either NATO or the Warsaw Pact from starting WWIII? :lol:

Stupid French, no one gives a **** about your sad little post-colonial nothing country.
 
Goobieman said:
You asked "what does it mean?"
Click to expand...

:doh

Just leave the thread goobieman :roll:

What does that mean? As in, it will be dragged into the US wars like GB?
Click to expand...

I underlined the part i referred the "what does that mean" part in the quote. Read.
 
Last edited:
kaya'08 said:
:doh

Just leave the threat goobieman :roll:
Click to expand...

That's not at all necessary.

You asked a question. Asking a question doesnt necessitate that you like the answers.
 
Goobieman said:
That's not at all necessary.

You asked a question. Asking a question doesnt necessitate that you like the answers.
Click to expand...

Wtf, im not even RECIEVING an answer what are you talking about? What answer have you given me in this thread that i dont like :shock:
 
Last edited:
GottaHurt said:
It means more French weapons will be surrendered to the enemy, and used against American & British troops.
Click to expand...

Old jokes about French surrender aside, NATO has wanted France back in ever since they left. There is no obligation for NATO to accept France but let's see what happens.

If the NATO countries think the French are rubbish then they won't be allowed back in will they? We Brits have fought the French for longer than we fought almost anyone else, some of our most famous warrior kings - Richard Lionheart for example were born and buried in France and had English and French blood running through their veins.
 
Well if you read the article the "clone of Great Britain" comment is coming from the fringe political groups/personalities...adn in this case probably only the Socialist mentioned.


Anyway..

While in 1966 France withdrew from Nato's decision-making core, its nuclear weapons structure and planning committee, it never left the alliance itself.

Indeed, it has been one of the most active members, supplying troops under allied command in Bosnia, Kosovo and in Afghanistan, where it has suffered significant losses.
Click to expand...

In effect little changes but the degree of French influence in NATO actions.



"Significant Casualties"...I take issue with that line.

Article from August 2008 referring the casualty levels of the Allies in Afghanistan. Troops levels ..roughly where they are etc..

BBC NEWS | South Asia | Afghan ambush kills French troops

At that time France had lost 24 KIA..
UK 116
Canada 90
USA 574

I'll be blunt..add every casualty level mentioned in that article(total-934) and "significant" is not a word to be applied.War started October 7, 2001 it is now March 11, 2009...

"Light Casualties" is what should be used.."Very Light" in actuality.


...........

Anyway like usual they don't mention the Afghans fighting with the Allies. Nothing new in that :( ..Easier to betray people you ignore.
 
Actually that's not very nice. I mean I've heard they have a contingent of soldiers in Iraq, standing by in case we need to surrender.
 
American said:
Actually that's not very nice. I mean I've heard they have a contingent of soldiers in Iraq, standing by in case we need to surrender.
Click to expand...

Another pointless dumb arse post out of an Americans mouth, but that aside, :rofl

Good one :2razz:
 
Last edited:
kaya'08 said:
BBC NEWS | Europe | France ends four-decade Nato rift



What does that mean? As in, it will be dragged into the US wars like GB?
Click to expand...

It means we now have a full fledged surrender monkey as a member.

No, they won't join in battle.
Why?
Look at the disgusting behavior of the Kanuckistani's on the Iraq issue.

The French have an educational role in NATO.
How to surrender without a fight.
They will teach this along with US Democrats who are responsible for teaching:

The War Vote: How to bait and switch for political gain in three easy steps.
 
Last edited:
Moon said:
Are you saying that GB sent troops to support military action against the will of their government?
Click to expand...

No, against the will of the people. Our government is too far up your arses to see clearly, and your heads are in the clouds, so your not seeing clearly either. So its a potentially dangerous situation, apart from the pro US everything government of ours, nobody wanted to know about iraq.
 
kaya'08 said:
No, against the will of the people.
Click to expand...

I avoid 'will of the people' arguments in my debate whenever possible. You see, while the 'will of the people' might be against war, the 'will of the people' might also work against my position from time to time.

The 'will of the people' hasn't worked out so well for those favoring gay marriage. And the 'will of the people' certainly wouldn't be appreciated by left-leaning women in many U.S. states if abortion rights were put on the ballot.

In fact, if the 'will of the people' had been honored during the 50s and 60s, I have little doubt most blacks would still be drinking from separate water fountains.

:2wave:
 
Grateful Heart said:
I avoid 'will of the people' arguments in my debate whenever possible. You see, while the 'will of the people' might be against war, the 'will of the people' might also work against my position from time to time.

The 'will of the people' hasn't worked out so well for those favoring gay marriage. And the 'will of the people' certainly wouldn't be appreciated by left-leaning women in many U.S. states if abortion rights were put on the ballot.

In fact, if the 'will of the people' had been honored during the 50s and 60s, I have little doubt most blacks would still be drinking from separate water fountains.

:2wave:
Click to expand...
Republican gave Johnson his civil rights law, don't ever forget that.
 
American said:
Republican gave Johnson his civil rights law, don't ever forget that.
Click to expand...

Of course. But I don't think the voters would have. That was my point.

Public opposition to interracial marriage in the 1950s was far higher than public opposition to gay marriage today.

However you view these issues, that old 'will of the people' argument can bite you. There are quite a few states in which the 'will of the people' would probably ban all guns. Kind of scary. Correct?

:2wave:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom