It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Sarkozy: France will return to NATO

page: 5
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in


posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 08:31 PM

Originally posted by SlinkyDFW

I also think that when the time comes that all NATO Nations are called to action, that France may actually take a back seat and sit out.

Again :

I guess I got your point.

[edit on 11-3-2009 by Rigel]

posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 08:55 PM
reply to post by johnsky

Well put, Excellent rebuttall. No, I don't actually know of any enemies of Canada, so you are correct.

And Rigel and have made our peace.

posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 09:57 PM

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

Some could say the same about the U.S., afterall we did run away from Vietnam, North Korea, and will be running away from Iraq next year and perhaps Afghanistan as well in time if the Taliban doesn't give up.

We had a technological advantage against all those countries but it's hard to "win" against forces that utilizes children and guerilla warfare. When we're forced to go into the jungles or into caves to hunt the enemy, most of our technological advantages diminishes. We're not going to be winning any of these battles until we replace our soldiers with robots.

posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 11:05 PM
Well, maybe France can earn its way back into NATO. I haven't seen them being a friend for quite a long time, while they enjoy the protection of NATO for many years. Welcome back, France! Now march in my parade. I say that because in the 1980's my unit in Germany was required to send a small unit to France to march in a parade for a retiring general. My platoon was selected. I voiced opposition to this because, well, I just didn't think the French deserved this from us. Anyway, I was allowed to not participate in the parade due to my belief the French did not deserve my attendance. Myself and one other soldier were relieved of our "duty" and chastised for our opinions. But, what they hell, when the position opened, I was selected to be the platoon sergeant for this platoon based on my actions which showed I did indeed have principles that I would not compromise. Hah.

posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 11:46 PM
Here's some videos to those of you hating on the French:

posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 08:05 AM

Lets leave the neocon stereotyping in the rubbish bin where it belongs please?

[edit on 12/3/09 by neformore]

[edit on 12/3/09 by neformore]

posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 10:53 AM

Originally posted by xmotex
And this would be, err, wonderful and all, if only NATO was an organization that still served any purpose.

It does serve a purpose. It is a military, socio-political, and cultural alliance that was brought on by circumstance and which is still needed. Notice one thing all NATO member countries have in common, they are all nations which employ a democratic process and which live in a democratic and open lifestyle. Historically Eastern Europe, especially Russia have always been behind the West in accepting more progressive reforms, in general. NATO help, although does not single handily ensure, that our beloved principles will never be threatened, either by political, energy, economic or even by military means.

Developing countries can join NATO for protection and assistance provided they take certain steps to improve their government, economy and defense industry. While the risk open warfare in Central Europe has diminished, history has shown such a possibility should not be ruled out. You speak of "long this" and "no longer that" even though the Georgia conflict is not even a year old. With that kind of attention span no wonder you think 1991 is millennia ago. I'm sure certain individuals who advocated lax posture and capability after WWI thought the same thing about 1918. Do not confuse a lack of resources and capability for a lack of intention and belief. Had NATO not been around, had Europe been isolated and dismembered militarily, after 1991, would Ukraine be where it is today, would any of the baltic nations? How would the recent gas and energy crisis have played out? Most people who dislike a powerful and global military presence always forget the immeasurable and unknown conflicts which such a force has prevented. That is the greatest and foremost attribute of a military force, to deter and prevent. Sure we never went to war, directly, with the Soviets during the Cold War, however that does not mean all the resources spend on the military were pointless. It was the military, in large part, which prevented that conflict from occurring in the first place!

There are ideologically opposed cultures which strive to have the military means, among other things, of achieving and imposing their national (or transnational) view upon interests of ours. As such we must always be ready and willing to make sure such does not happen.

The world never stays static, you might hardly recognize the world of 2050, heck look what a few months have done to the world so far. Don't take for granted that the United States and Europe (and by extrapolation me and you) will always be secure and dominant in sectors which matter. Such ability is earned and maintained, not granted as a birthright.

Originally posted by xmotex
I fail to see how bringing our troops back to defend the US, where they belong, threatens our "freedom".

The things which in part enable our "freedoms" extend far beyond the borders of the United States. What enables me to wake up comfortably, drive out and enjoy a nice dinner without a case in the world, other than the bill, has its roots in US military, economic, and political deals and means which are spread out all over the globe. Isolationism does not work, and cannot work, unless we are content with more modestly and without privilege, living as a people and nation passively. Depending on the good nature of others for prosperity rather than actively ensuring such in the face of any possible challenge. I for one will NEVER ACCEPT being isolated and surrounded on the American continent by foreign influences. Your "well-equipped, well-trained, capable military" would be similar to a White shark in a cage. Sure inside that cage he is master, but who cares when everyone else has the whole ocean to play in.

I don't expect you to understand my views, but that's a small preview.

[edit on 12-3-2009 by WestPoint23]

posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 11:04 AM
I keep hearing justifications like that, but it's farcical.

We have troops based in 160 countries around the planet or something like that.

No other country in the world does anything remotely similar, yet they still manage to be free. It has nothing to do with defending our country, and everything to do with misguided dreams of controlling the world.

Meanwhile our country is going broke, yet still trying to pay for a military quasi-Empire that Americans do not want, do not need, and cannot afford.

Bring them home, and we can afford to maintain our technological and training edge, so that when our military is actually needed, they're prepared.

Otherwise, we can kiss things like F-22 that maintain our technological edge goodbye, because we won't be able to afford them.

It's time to make some tough choices, and I'd rather see a cutting edge force based here at home, where it will help local economies, than a force spread around the planet doing things like "protecting" Germany from Soviet tank formations that haven't existed in 18 years...

PS: don't patronize me, I understand your views, I simply disagree

[edit on 3/12/09 by xmotex]

posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 11:35 PM
I'm going to talk about France the way the more candid French people I know usually do.

Whatever has happened in history, even recently, it's now the 21st Century.

France once had a lot going for it but is becoming a ghost of itself. No significant natural resources, no growing manufacturing or technology industries, overreliance on agriculture, tourism, selling it's cultural cachet of wine, perfumes, consumer brand names, etc.

An extended period of cozying up to Middle East oil countries for security and 'special' proces for oil. France was mollified when the US went into Iraq in 2003, shattering their under the table arrangements with Saddam Hussein.

With a declining birth rate among the French and increasing unemployment and Muslim immigrant social problems, a poor economic outlook with more to be pessimistic about than optimistic, France is currently in a funk.

Sarkozy has decided the country is better off with a solidified relationship with the US. This causes resentment among the French themselves. They are proud of their autonomy and fell culturally superior.

But the France is treading water right now, with unfortunately little to offer on today's world stage apart from it's traditions, cultural echoes of a glorious past, and it's pride.


<< 2  3  4   >>

log in