Shove off, France. Leave it to the British.

[Blackleaf]

The cowardly French have pledged only a measly 200 troops to Lebanon. Because of that, the RAF has decided to help out with some PROPER power. But no British troops will be going to Lebanon because, unlike France, we have thousands getting their hands dirty in Iraq and Afghanistan......



20 August 2006

MISSION LEBANON

EXCLUSIVE RAF top guns and Navy frigate set for war zone as pact falters
By Nigel Nelson

RAF Jaguars

RAF AWAC


RAF top guns are set to patrol the skies over Lebanon within days.

Britain has earmarked six Jaguar reconnaissance jets to monitor peacekeeping efforts.

And the Government is ready to pledge two AWAC spy planes to provide warnings of breaches in the shaky ceasefire with Israel.

A naval frigate is on standby to go to the warzone to provide further backup.

But a Ministry of Defence source said British ground troops would not be joining the 13,000-strong UN peacekeeping force because we are too "heavily involved" in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Yet that does not rule out the use of special forces if they are needed for top secret missions. UN Secretary General Kofi Annan is furious that France has only pledged 200 soldiers to help the ceasefire.

They are supposed to be leading the effort to stop any flareup of the 34-day war between Israel and Lebanon-based Hezbollah fighters.

He has appealed to the EU to send more troops for the advance force to arrive next week.

Only Italy has promised a substantial contribution of 3,000 soldiers, with Spain offering 700 and Belgium expected to send a similar number. The first cracks in the fragile peace pact appeared yesterday when Israeli commandos dropped out of helicopter gunships to attack a guerrilla stronghold in the east.

Their mission was to destroy a bridge used by Hezbollah to ship weapons supplied by Syria and Iran.

One Israeli officer was killed and two soldiers wounded in the attacks. Three Hezbollah fighters died.

Lebanon protested to the UN about the "naked violation" of the truce.

It threatened to stop sending its peacekeeping troops to the south of the country unless the UN intervened over the raid.

But the Israeli army claimed their assault was "to prevent and interfere with terror activity against Israel".

And they vowed such operations would continue until "an effective monitoring unit" was in place to prevent Hezbollah rebuilding its arsenal.

Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev insisted: "If the Syrians and Iran continue to arm Hezbollah in violation of the UN ceasefire resolution, Israel is entitled to act to defend the principle of the arms embargo."

Meanwhile Israeli soldiers arrested the Palestinian deputy prime minister yesterday in their government's crackdown against the ruling Hamas party.

Troops burst into the home of Nasser Shaer and took him away, said his wife Huda.


nigel.nelson@people.co.uk

people.co.uk

 

[Blackleaf]

France's rapidly reducing status as a world power.

France, along with the US, drew up the peace plan between Israel and Palestine. But it refuses to follow it through by sending only a poxy 200 troops. The US, like Britain, can't really be expected to send troops when they already have thousands in Iraq. But the other thing is that France still wanted to LEAD the peacekeeping mission despite them sending only 200 troops whereas even the Italians are pledging 3000 and even little BELGIUM wants to send 700. And how even more embarrassing it is for the French when Israel has now asked Italy to lead the mission, showing that nowadays even Italy (and maybe Belgium) is a greater power on the world stage than France.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Sun Aug 20, 6:40 PM ET

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has called for Italy to lead a U.N. peacekeeping force for Lebanon, his office said in a statement on Sunday.

The call was made in a telephone conversation between Olmert and Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi and indicated Italy's chances of leading the force had increased following France's apparent reluctance to commit more than 200 additional troops to Lebanon.

"It is important that Italy should lead the international force and send troops to also oversee the Lebanon-
Syria border crossings," the statement said.

The U.N. is trying to assemble a 15,000-strong international force in southern Lebanon, to keep the peace alongside a similar sized Lebanese contingent.

Olmert told his cabinet on Sunday that the U.N. force should not include troops from countries without diplomatic relations with
Israel, an official in his office said.

The Italian government has not specified how many troops it is prepared to contribute, but officials in Rome say the figure could be up to 3,000, making it one of the biggest contributors.

Italy's Defense Minister Arturo Parisi said in a written statement on Friday that "eventually our country could assume the responsibility of leading the operation."

Prodi's office said on Sunday he discussed the force in separate telephone conversations with Olmert and Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora.

Both men told Prodi they appreciated that Italy was ready "to assume a role of primary importance" in the mission.

A Lebanese government source said further talks were needed.

"They (Italy) have a positive readiness and are more enthusiastic than other parties but the discussions need more calls with the Italians and the French," the source said.

MEANWHILE France called on Sunday for a
European Union meeting in the next few days to co-ordinate what member countries plan to do about the U.N. force.

Lebanese political sources confirmed the figure of 3,000 Italian soldiers was mentioned by Prodi, adding the Lebanese cabinet would meet on Monday and welcome the Italian initiative.

The statement from Olmert's office said he saw Italy's contribution to the force as "vital to the implementation of (U.N.) Security Council resolution 1701 and it will be an important contribution to peace and stability in the Middle East."

The U.N.-brokered ceasefire ending a 34-day war between Israel and the Hizbollah guerrillas in Lebanon came into effect last Monday.

Nearly 1,200 people in Lebanon and 157 Israelis were killed during the conflict, in which villages in southern Lebanon and Beirut suburbs were damaged by Israeli air strikes, and northern Israel was shut down by Hizbollah rockets fired across the border.


news.yahoo.com . . .

 

[iARTthere4iam]

Typical of France. Talk big, waffle, then retreat. 200 troops! outrageous.

 

[Graeme]

France used to be a great nation up until about a hundred years ago. They became quite pathetic after WWI.

(edit: well, 85 years ago)

 

[EastSideScotian]

Re: RE: Shove off, France. Leave it to the British.

France used to be a great nation up until about a hundred years ago. They became quite pathetic after WWI.

(edit: well, 85 years ago)

Indeed. If you ask me the french revolution, screwed the french....If they stayed an absolote monarchy, the king could of beheaded all the fools realitives that are in power now

 

[cortex]

Britain sends zero troops
The US sends zero troops

Cowards
Hypocrites
Liars

 

[Gonzo]

Everyone seems to hate the french. Britain is not a super power either. How many troops are they sending? 0? Why? Because they took it up the butt from America and went into an illegal war in Iraq. The British cant admit they aren't a super power anymore so they pick on the French.

 

[s_lone]

What's the big thing with wanting to be a super-power? You want to rule the world or something?

Hopefully, the 21st century won't be about super-powers but rather about communities and solidarity.

 

[cortex]

Agreed. I love watching them lash out in their post colonial decline, desparately kissing americas smelly butt.

 

[Daz_Hockey]

RE: Shove off, France. L

Britain DOES NOT think it's a superpower.....tired of that, old hat, been that for 300 hundred years, biggest empire since Rome, why does britain think it's a superpower?....


It doesn't, it thinks it's a global power...which IT IS, it's GDP alone would suggest it, it's certainly the most powerful country in europe, it's power still streches globally...

where as France has always been jelous of Britain, and Britain of France, to solve why the British (or actually the English) hate the french and visa versa would require an honours degree in history.

And Tony Blair knows his government and the people will not accept any more military involvement....this is why we have not, also remember Suez?

Remember what happened the LAST time Britain played "peace maker"?....it joined up with france "keeping the peace between Israel and Egypt (all the while trying to steal the suez canal out of the egyption hands, and are weary of what people may think.

 

[Gonzo]

Being a super power is not good for the citizens of that country. I wish the world didn't have any super power countries. They start wars to support their military industrial complex. Whats the point in being a super power if you dont get to fight in any wars?

 

[Hotshot]

Hmmm, the British connection with the Yankees in Iraq is going to Blackleaf's head, which is getting bigger by the minute considering his recent posts. The Brit is getting smug and arrogent. Being in bed with bushinski is nothing to be proud of. Wake up and smell the tea!

 

[Toro]

Re: RE: Shove off, France. L

Britain DOES NOT think it's a superpower.....

Boy, ain't that the truth.

I figured that out within the first 12 hours I was in England.

 

[Daz_Hockey]

RE: Shove off, France. L

The way I see it, a part of britain will always be left over the pond anyway.....so I suppose you could still associate exfacto-quasi-britain as a superpower (however much they dislike the idea).

British and English ideals, history and language are still what currently holds this world together...people dont speak the global language or ideals of the french do they? (and for this the french have always, no matter what they say, been envious of).

So by calling britain arrogant is just sour grapes, there probably isnt a single thing on this planet now that hasnt been influenced by the british or their former colonies, so however britain is now, or however it's viewed by others, no-one can ever deny it's reputation, global inpact or influence (which is still there actually).

Britain joins the US in most of it's foreign wars for a whole galaxy of reasons, one because we know we'd be speaking german without them, we thank them for the greatest leader we've ever had, all the support they (begrudgingly) gave us...we undertand that we (along with or perhaps joined with Canada) have the longest off-and-on relationship with the only superpower left and we're perfectly happy to allow the kid the glory it's old man enjoyed.

But britain doesnt see itself as a superpower, leave that to someone else, anglo of course...ok rant over

 

[Mogz]

You know Blackleaf, it's quiet obvious you're the typical french-hating Brit, but think you could perhaps tone down the retoric? Britain isn't all that great, and just to pop your bubble, the French military is much, much larger than the British. While I have no love for the French military I have a love for fact, and the fact Blackleaf is that the French military is much larger and more active internationally than the British are. Some quick figures:

Strength:
British Military: 192,000 (Janes Defence Monthly)
French Military: 356,000 (taken from French Embassay website)

Deployments:
British Military: 18,000 (British Army website)
French Military: 33,000 (French Embassy Website)

Facts:

1. The French Navy is the only Navy (other than the U.S.) to float a super carrier, furthermore the Charles de Gaulle is the only catapult-launch carrier ever constructed in Europe.

2. The Charles de Gaulle carrier battle group is deployed currently in the Arabian Sea. The Battle Group consists of the CVN Charles de Gaulle, 6 French warships, 1 Royal Navy Frigate, and some 3,000 French Naval personel.

3. In Kosovo France (with 2,300 troops) is the third largest contributer, also ahead of Britain (1,500 troops).

4. French has recently command ISAF in Afghanistan and KFOR in Kosovo.

5. The Royal Navy currently has on strength 87 warships (including submarines), while the French Navy has 145 warships (including submarines). Now this (for both navies) factors in puny craft like fast patrol boats and the like and also does not factor in Merchant Marine ships (which both Navies have). So when we trim the fat and get down to actual warships that each nation holds the breakdown is such:

Royal Navy:

VTOL Light Carriers: 2
Destroyers: 8
Frigates: 17
Landing Ships: 3
Mine Warfare: 16
Supply/Support Ships: 4
Submarines: 13
Total:63

French Navy:

Nuclear Aircraft Carrier: 1
Helicopter Carrier: 1
Destroyers: 12
Guided Missile Frigates: 20
Patrol Frigates: 18
Landing Ships: 8
Mine Warfare: 13
Supply/Support Ships: 11
Submarines: 10
Total:94

As you can see, the French have a larger surface action fleet than Britian, while Britian has a larger subsurface action fleet...by 3 ships. In all the French Navy is bigger, and has a much larger punch (50 action ships versus the British's 25).

6. Air power. The French Air Force has over 1,100 aircraft under their control, with 150 fixed wing and 80 rotary aircraft comprising their mobility arm. The French Tactical Air Command (one division of the French Air Force) has 330 fighter aircraft alone, while the entire Royal Air Force (including the fleet air arm) numbers less than 250 active combat aircraft; 167 Tornado's, 26 Jaguar's, and 45 Harriers. The French Air Force has over 500 combat air craft, in addition to 130 in it's fleet air arm. That's 630 combat aircraft to the Royal Air Forces 238.

To wrap up, the French military is larger, well equipped, and far reaching. Perhaps that information doesn't permeate the British "down with the French" mindset, but the numbers really don't lie. France has more troops deployed abroad, has a larger Navy, and has more fighter aircraft. I wouldn't piss them off.

P.S. The French Foreign Legion does not factor in to their combined military strength as it is a seperate entity. The French Foreign Legion currently numbers around 10,000 men which comprise 9 Regiments of calvary, infantry, engineers, and airborne troops.

 

[Daz_Hockey]

RE: Shove off, France. L

Didn't help em in world war 2 did it? lol.....always required when suggesting the size of the french fleet compared to britain!!!

 

[Logic 7]

Re: RE: Shove off, France. Leave it to the British.

Britain sends zero troops
The US sends zero troops

Cowards
Hypocrites
Liars

Your posts are direct, mostly radicals, but very factual, keep it up.

 

[cortex]

Re: RE: Shove off, France. Leave it to the British.

You know Blackleaf, it's quiet obvious you're the typical french-hating Brit, but think you could perhaps tone down the retoric? Britain isn't all that great, and just to pop your bubble, the French military is much, much larger than the British. While I have no love for the French military I have a love for fact, and the fact Blackleaf is that the French military is much larger and more active internationally than the British are. Some quick figures:

Strength:
British Military: 192,000 (Janes Defence Monthly)
French Military: 356,000 (taken from French Embassay website)

Deployments:
British Military: 18,000 (British Army website)
French Military: 33,000 (French Embassy Website)

Facts:

1. The French Navy is the only Navy (other than the U.S.) to float a super carrier, furthermore the Charles de Gaulle is the only catapult-launch carrier ever constructed in Europe.

2. The Charles de Gaulle carrier battle group is deployed currently in the Arabian Sea. The Battle Group consists of the CVN Charles de Gaulle, 6 French warships, 1 Royal Navy Frigate, and some 3,000 French Naval personel.

3. In Kosovo France (with 2,300 troops) is the third largest contributer, also ahead of Britain (1,500 troops).

4. French has recently command ISAF in Afghanistan and KFOR in Kosovo.

5. The Royal Navy currently has on strength 87 warships (including submarines), while the French Navy has 145 warships (including submarines). Now this (for both navies) factors in puny craft like fast patrol boats and the like and also does not factor in Merchant Marine ships (which both Navies have). So when we trim the fat and get down to actual warships that each nation holds the breakdown is such:

Royal Navy:

VTOL Light Carriers: 2
Destroyers: 8
Frigates: 17
Landing Ships: 3
Mine Warfare: 16
Supply/Support Ships: 4
Submarines: 13
Total:63

French Navy:

Nuclear Aircraft Carrier: 1
Helicopter Carrier: 1
Destroyers: 12
Guided Missile Frigates: 20
Patrol Frigates: 18
Landing Ships: 8
Mine Warfare: 13
Supply/Support Ships: 11
Submarines: 10
Total:94

As you can see, the French have a larger surface action fleet than Britian, while Britian has a larger subsurface action fleet...by 3 ships. In all the French Navy is bigger, and has a much larger punch (50 action ships versus the British's 25).

6. Air power. The French Air Force has over 1,100 aircraft under their control, with 150 fixed wing and 80 rotary aircraft comprising their mobility arm. The French Tactical Air Command (one division of the French Air Force) has 330 fighter aircraft alone, while the entire Royal Air Force (including the fleet air arm) numbers less than 250 active combat aircraft; 167 Tornado's, 26 Jaguar's, and 45 Harriers. The French Air Force has over 500 combat air craft, in addition to 130 in it's fleet air arm. That's 630 combat aircraft to the Royal Air Forces 238.

To wrap up, the French military is larger, well equipped, and far reaching. Perhaps that information doesn't permeate the British "down with the French" mindset, but the numbers really don't lie. France has more troops deployed abroad, has a larger Navy, and has more fighter aircraft. I wouldn't piss them off.

P.S. The French Foreign Legion does not factor in to their combined military strength as it is a seperate entity. The French Foreign Legion currently numbers around 10,000 men which comprise 9 Regiments of calvary, infantry, engineers, and airborne troops.

Interesting stats
both have large , powerfull militaries for countries their size.

This however is the difference between the French and the British:

The French have a department of DEFENSE to be used in the defence of their country should that be required, as a last resort, and under international rules of law--as any country has a right to

The BRITISH and AMERICANS have a department of WAR --to be used in the ruthless amoral hypocritical self righteous pursuit of material wealth as a first line approach

The French -international leaders
The British and americans--- rogue states

 

[Daz_Hockey]

RE: Shove off, France. L

Thats "very bloody powerful rogue states" - Mr Cortex thank you very much my good man

Besides, are you forgetting the hundreds of years BEFORE the french became such introverted wimps obsessed with self defence? (Maginau line good example of how big, but introvertly obsessed the french became).

 

[cortex]

Re: RE: Shove off, France. L

Didn't help em in world war 2 did it? lol.....always required when suggesting the size of the french fleet compared to britain!!!

The defense of France from Germany was a joint French-british plan. It was planned and executed by both french and the british---ie the british expediciary forces--The Germans defeated the British --in the early days of the war----as the british ran with their cowardly tails between their legs --ran ran ran retreating all the way to dunkirk --and then back to britain whimpering.

--what have you forgotten dunkirk....

without the americans youd be speaking german

and most importantly without the Russions---you would
have been completely defeated-

The SACRIFICE was made by RUSSIA and her people--they sacrificed 30 million of their own to save themselves and the world from fascism

you would do well to rememeber these facts