Sarkozy: France will return to NATO

Sarkozy: France will return to NATO

www.cnn.com

Sarkozy is expected to say that he wants France to rejoin the military alliance as a full member at its 60th anniversary summit next month.

Charles de Gaulle took France out of NATO more than 40 years ago in protest at U.S. domination.

In 1966, de Gaulle, then president, evicted all allied troops and bases from France in order to assert French sovereignty.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.google.com
www.iht.com

Mod Edit: Review This Link: Instructions for the Breaking News Forums: Copy The Exact Headline

* Copy the exact headline of the story into the headline field, don't make one up or sensationalise it. Submissions with inaccurate, biased or otherwise deceptive headlines may be moved, closed or deleted.

[edit on 3/11/2009 by semperfortis]

Although France has contributed some to NATO, now they want to come back and be a full member.

This move will certainly divide the French people, and will cause internals problems within that Country. The people, specifically the younger generation, have had very little tolerance with the Government over the last few years.

Sarkozy is also asking for a command post in the US? Somehow I don't think that will happen.

Unless, of course, Hillary and Obama decide to borrow another trillion or two from the French, and in return, they get Virginia....

www.cnn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 3/11/2009 by semperfortis]

We shouldn't really worry. The french will do what they do best, run away

reply to post by Sliick


Nato has never really had a very good exit strategy maybe they can lend their expertise.
I think Nato needs to learn to be at one with it's feminine side.


[edit on 11-3-2009 by SLAYER69]

the french run away and are a bit feminine

yeah, so eh.....georgia? and how is that whole iraq/afghan thing going?

yeah, we all know america doesn't run away, it's too fat, it can barely waddle

Touche.

I think the success the US have been a part of far outweigh the quagmire they are in in the Middle East.

The French did well with Napoleon until a certain country got involved in Portugal as I recall.

Since then ..... meh.

the soldiers can finally look forward to an evening of relaxation after a hard day at battle.

Red wine, crepes, and a film festival....

and the first Naval Base should be located in the ports of La Ciotat on the Southern coast. Park your battleship right on the dock.

Then they can mingle with the locals on 'President Wilson Blvd" or stroll down 'Franklin Roosevelt Ave". (real names of streets in La Ciotat)

Sad.....really sad!!!

How disappointing that most threads recently derail into stereotyping....

Oh well whatever we are best at......

By the way, i'm not french but i resent this kind of conversation an i hope this thread (which started out so well, OP) will be closed down because of it's non-posts.

Peace

[edit on 11/3/2009 by operation mindcrime]

If such a move can avoid Yankee-Parties as in Kosovo around the end of the last century, I'm straightly for us French to have indeed a wrist well-packed hard deep inside this big americano-american NATO hole...

- "...Uuuuuhhh.... Ooohhh....."






[edit on 11-3-2009 by Rigel]

I'm not sure where the motivation to get into stereotypes comes from. Ironically, the French assertion of sovereignty and unwillingness to simply 'go along' with American plans shortly after World War Two was a stunning show of integrety.

However, as the political 'shadow play' becomes more evident (It's all about the bankers anymore) it seems they are little better at dealing with world conflict than we are.

I like to remind people that France was a member of the Warsaw Pact alliance during the latter Soviet era. (They joined around the same time as the Iranian's expelled the CIA-backed Shah and took American 'hostages'.)

I think people's perceptions of the French are likely due to propaganda drilled into the American public after France left NATO; but I'm no expert on the matter.

reply to post by Rigel


France should be a full member of NATO. As one of the largest Countries in the region, it needs to contribute the security of its' own land, just as Germany would, England, Italy....etc. I know they contribute, sometimes with soldiers, mostly with money, but until they get on board 100%, the ridicule above will continue. Just my thoughts...

and here is an article I thought was a little misleading:

www.diplomatie.gouv.fr...

It speaks of the will of the people, but it's not shown in it's actions.

.."The Alliance should be the special forum for transatlantic consultation so that Americans and Europeans are ready to work together politically and militarily within the Alliance when necessary for their joint security. France considers that the depth of the longstanding links between all the countries in the Alliance is a priceless asset that must be maintained in order to cope with current and future challenges and threats."..

Says a lot, if it were only true.

The threats in the region are real. I also have to remind people all the time that it's not the "North AMERICAN Treaty Orgainzation". It's Atlantic.

All the Countries seeking joint security and peace should get on board. The US just needs to back off some and let others do their part.


[edit on 11-3-2009 by SlinkyDFW]

Americans have a freudian problem with Europe, that is all. Need to kill the father, or whatever...

Without France, no United States, historically.

The sad thing is that France is in many ways a micro-America (politically and historically speaking, but also in many ways by its geographical situation), and that americans could benefit much from seing us as a tender little geniusic brother than as a foe of any sort...

But as always, Ces Améri-Caïns prefer to act with their weaker (to say so) buddies more like some biblical Cain than would have a Christ...

Ô tragic fate of the too young nations...


[edit on 11-3-2009 by Rigel]

Originally posted by Maxmars

I like to remind people that France was a member of the Warsaw Pact alliance during the latter Soviet era.

Whaat ??? France has never been a member of the Warsaw Pact ! France has been member of the NATO since the beginning 1949, we only left the integrated structure in 1966 but contributed a great deal to the organization's finances and operation (Kosovo, AF, etc...).

The stereotyping c'est très désagréable

The French bring with them an aircraft carrier, 2 command ships, 4 SSBN's, 6 SSN's, a helicopter cruiser, 24 destroyers & frigates, 2 LPD's, 266 Mirage 2000's, 109 Mirage F1's, 34 Rafale, 350+ Leclerc MBT's, 200 light tanks, 4,000 APC's, 1800 reconn & IFV's, 80 eurocopters etc etc etc

Quite a substantial contribution to NATO, I think you'd agree ?

Originally posted by SlinkyDFW
reply to post by Rigel

I like to remind people that France was a member of the Warsaw Pact alliance during the latter Soviet era. (They joined around the same time as the Iranian's expelled the CIA-backed Shah and took American 'hostages'.)

Err... To say the least... Not sure of this... Any source ?

reply to post by The Lass


That is quite a substantial bit of help as I am sure the nation as a whole will be to NATO.

I meant no disrespect and to anyone that I offended I apologise, I just reacted to something I should not have.

I am an American.

I say admit France to NATO but have no US presence there.

Take it further.

No US presence anywhere but in the US.

No more flotillas of multi billion dollar warships.

No more trillions a year in overseas bases.

No more time money and effort wasted in places where we are not wanted.

We use that money to secure our borders, pay for infrastructure and redirect taxes to more usefull pursuits.

Oh, don't get me wrong.
We need to keep a strong military. We just need it here.

France will be fine without us.

reply to post by badgerprints


What bothers me as a french citizen, and for so European, is that this "Machin" (this "Stuff", as used to say De Gaulle about the United Nations...) is simply and surely replacing the EUROPEAN DEFENSE FORCE that should be quickly implemented in, for and by the European Community.

Sarkozy loves to play the savant monkey on the euro-dancefloors, but still does nothing to the end of some European Army, - that could also help to avoid in da near futur' all kind of Kosovisms and others Bosnism - not to mention Saakashvileries of any sorts...

So, it's okay to commit some of the hardware, and some of the cash, but only if it's convenient? Or France is all of a sudden in trouble?

The entire De Gaulle pullout in the first place was because NATO and the USA asked for help in drawing up plans for a "Massive Retaliation" scenario, and France backed out.

They wouldn't commit the nukes, so it rested on the US's shoulders to provide them. I don't think that sat too well....

It destroyed the 'Faith and Intent" of the treaty. They only stuck around for the obvious need of the upcoming technology....radars, communications, computers, etc. "We'll stick around and throw money at you, if you'll share with us what you know".

A comment was made earlier that Americans were 'brainwashed' into their dislike of the French. That's not it. It's that we remember. The whole world watched when the bases were closed and all of the forces thrown out. That's why the Americans tend to believe that France would rather walk away from a fight, than stand alongside.

I guess things turned drastically different when we all found that the Soviet Union was stockpiling in Germany for an attack in the 60's. Is that when the French decided to get back on board? When the SR-71 found the first truckloads of what looked like WW-III building up in their backyard?

Now Iran and North Korea are barking, and here we are again.

BTW: badgerprints....