French army falling apart, documents show

[Fragony]

Thank you for calling me nationalist - I'm pround. I'm pround because nationalism is thing Europe needs.

Yup

ps, england will fall first, it basicly already did.

[Tribesman]

Thank you for calling me nationalist - I'm pround. I'm pround because nationalism is thing Europe needs.

Yeah like the idiot orientated nationalism that wants to kill a soccer ref because it didn't win a game
Whatever happened to your great Polish soccer topic yesterday eh ?

[Banquo's Ghost]

Yup

ps, england will fall first, it basicly already did.

Fragony, old chum, doesn't it concern you just a tiny wee bit that you are agreeing with a political analysis of Krook's?

'Cause, y'know, you're freaking me out. I thought you only used cocaine at weekends.

[Fragony]

I am not nearly as hardcore as Krook but I do agree that europe needs nationalism, look at england it's simply pathetic.

[Tribesman]

I am not nearly as hardcore as Krook but I do agree that europe needs nationalism, look at england it's simply pathetic.

The problem there is that nationalism is usually the realm of braindead idiots .

Take this Irish nationalist as an example.....http://mreugenides.blogspot.com/2007...nst-irony.html

[Fragony]

The problem there is that nationalism is usually the realm of braindead idiots .

Take this Irish nationalist as an example.....http://mreugenides.blogspot.com/2007...nst-irony.html

That is sadly true.

[Louis VI the Fat]

much as i said above in my first post. :)

Huh? I read your post, even replied to it.

I was too lazy to write an extensive reply. Then later when I did I seemed to have totally forgotten that you made the argument about the timing of this leak already. How very sloppy of me. Sorry.

Peace keeping needs a LOT of manpower, as the US experiment in Iraq.
Technologies will NOT replace men.
In Afghanistan, you need to win heart and mind, and no drone will vaccinate kids, speak to the elders and secured the road, reopen the markets, which is actually what hi needed.
The Foreign Legion was known to built school, bridge, and roads. It was even in the instruction from Lyautey (or Gallieni) (famous generals in the French Colonial Empire) to built a school and to open a market in each new conquered village.
The French won the battle of Algeria in deploying masses of soldiers, combined with Intelligence Services and mobile highly trained forces (using helicopters even before the US Mobile Cavalry) and cutting the Algerian Forces from the bases (Maurice line). All these aspect needed a lot of men.

With a small amount of professionals you may able to win a short war, but even professional can get exhausted and kill. Proof in Iraq again: US and UK have to send Territorial and National Guards to fill the gap.

Army work doesn’t stop at fighting. To win a war isn’t winning battles… Especially in the frame of the “asymetric” war…

And that is why I think the actual Sarkozy’s policy will lead to a disaster, as in UK and USA.

That is a very good case for the argument of boots. I have to think it over.

Where would I be without you?

[JR-]

Great Britain (that other bunch of treacheous cowards who sold out glorious Poland to the Nazis and communists and ukranians and jews) managed by cutting back on other deployments ,utilising reserve and territorial forces to send some troops to Iraq very short of supplies and equipment and with lots of outdated and useless stuff to make up the bulk . They also manged to achieve this by borrowing heavily , this heavy borrowing has led to cuts in the defense procurement and development programs as well as a large reduction in force capabilities . In addition the deployment had to be largely facilitated by hiring or leasing transport which led to more expense and added delays ......

I recognise the problems of small army syndrome, but our problems in iraq are compounded by two serious problems.

1. Labour refuses to allocate wartime spending when we are fighting two wars, seriously, we are down to 2.0% of GDP from a Cold War high of about 3.5%

2. Underfunding has also caused a wage crisis which means that almost all of our infantry battalions are only at ~80% strength (about 5% overall), which is why we have relied upon the territorials so heavily.

[JR-]

Here we disagree: Not on the back on topic but on the smaller force topic.
Again it depend what are your mission.
Peace keeping needs a LOT of manpower, as the US experiment in Iraq.
Technologies will NOT replace men.
In Afghanistan, you need to win heart and mind, and no drone will vaccinate kids, speak to the elders and secured the road, reopen the markets, which is actually what hi needed.
The Foreign Legion was known to built school, bridge, and roads. It was even in the instruction from Lyautey (or Gallieni) (famous generals in the French Colonial Empire) to built a school and to open a market in each new conquered village.
The French won the battle of Algeria in deploying masses of soldiers, combined with Intelligence Services and mobile highly trained forces (using helicopters even before the US Mobile Cavalry) and cutting the Algerian Forces from the bases (Maurice line). All these aspect needed a lot of men.

With a small amount of professionals you may able to win a short war, but even professional can get exhausted and kill. Proof in Iraq again: US and UK have to send Territorial and National Guards to fill the gap.

Army work doesn’t stop at fighting. To win a war isn’t winning battles… Especially in the frame of the “asymetric” war…

And that is why I think the actual Sarkozy’s policy will lead to a disaster, as in UK and USA.

you also have to be able to sustain a force at the far ends of the world, and frances Fulda Gap mentality utterly precludes it from fighting two separate wars in afghan and iraq as is being done (with extreme difficulty) by the UK.

as i said it is an easy choice for the UK, we are an island, and france has to make its own choices where its priorities lie. :)

[Tribesman]

1. Labour refuses to allocate wartime spending when we are fighting two wars, seriously, we are down to 2.0% of GDP from a Cold War high of about 3.5%

During the Cold War you had to maintain a very different set up and had to maintain a large number of expensive establishments , vast numbers of those expensive outlays are no longer required .

2. Underfunding has also caused a wage crisis which means that almost all of our infantry battalions are only at ~80% strength (about 5% overall), which is why we have relied upon the territorials so heavily.

Nothing new about that , during the falklands infantry brigades and battalions were very understrength which meant that battalions were moved to bring the deployed brigades up to strength and then troops were taken from other battalions to bring the deployed battalions up to strength .

[HoreTore]

Bah, who wants a military anyway? 30 billion NOK my country can spend on better things...

And don't give me that "the russkies will invade us"-nonsense. Because if they do, our army will be as effective as in 1940 no matter what, ie. reduced to guerillas after the army is soundly thrashed. These days it will be a LOT easier for the russkies than it was for the germans though, since the norwegian defence plan consists of grouping our entire army on one mountain(Mauken), and one tiny nuke will solve that problem in one go.

Spending 30 billion per year to let thousands of people die instantly? It doesn't sound like a very good investment to me, at least.

I say we should disband the entire army, train a few volunteer guerilla forces and leave it at that. No point in spending billions on cannon fodder.

[KrooK]

Nice Hore but with one weak point.
Russkies will not behave like Americans - only like nazis in Russia.
They will kill you all into 3 - 4 years.

[Strike For The South]

Nice Hore but with one weak point.
Russkies will not behave like Americans - only like nazis in Russia.
They will kill you all into 3 - 4 years.

Somehow I doubt a russian invasion of Norway anytime soon. Call me crazy

[Sarmatian]

Somehow I doubt a russian invasion of Norway anytime soon. Call me crazy

I give a slightly bigger chance to Zulu invasion of England, but that's just me.

For small countries small army that would deal with small threats is quite enough. If we're ever attacked by big boys, it wouldn't make a difference whether we spent 50% or 0.5% of our GDP on military.

But for countries like France, respectably sized and effective army is a must, if they want to stay in the big boys group.

[KrooK]

I'm not claiming that Norway is Russian objective. I'm telling that russian invasion is not same like american invasion :)

[KarlXII]

I'm not claiming that Norway is Russian objective. I'm telling that russian invasion is not same like american invasion :)

Is it the nationalism talking?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Bah, who wants a military anyway? 30 billion NOK my country can spend on better things...

It doesn't matter if you want a military or not, but eventually, sometime in the future of your country, you will need one. War in the Western World is not a thing of the past, and I doubt it ever will be.

[Brenus]

To rely on a small highly trained professional is a return to medieval Ages when a bunch of knights were quarrelling each others to control counties and towns.
When Bush came with the idea that the Iraq campaign will sustain itself we were right back to the pillaging and live on the field things…

The French Revolution showed that at the times of mercenaries and small professional armies have lived.
Because the cost and this absurd believing in technology, our leaders think they can go back to this system.

Now, the SS and Germans soldiers were probably better trained than my grand parents. However, to blow up their train didn’t take too much training, so…

I was a highly trained professional. At this period, to be a soldier was not fashion, and was no respect was due just because you were wearing a uniform. We were more often spit up than applauded…
Did we (me and my comrades in arms) cared? No. Why? Because when you train, you developed as well a high level of arrogance, self confidence, this feeling to be elite. You are cut from the society you are supposed to protect.
I trained with US and Germans. We were sharing the same values... Foreign professional soldiers were closer to me (at least they understood what and why I was doing things, AND they went through the same hardship. They physically knew what is to suffer the weight of a backpack, the sleepless nights, the burning of the physical training etc…).
I was cured by training draftees who just put my feet back on the ground…

[JR-]

"I'm not claiming that Norway is Russian objective. I'm telling that russian invasion is not same like american invasion"

Is it the nationalism talking?

a very reasonable sentiment really.

Grozny or Baghdad, i know where i would rather have been at the height of hostilities.

[KrooK]

Its not nationalism - its analise Russian military history.

[BigTex]

Its not nationalism - its analise Russian military history.

While I agree with most of your post, war with russia is really unlikely. War is more likely going to come further east then them. You have 2 massive countries, india and China, with massive populations starting to hurtle themselves headlong into industrialization and overall modernization. They sit right next to themselves, and already have over the past century border conflicts. Not to mention India can very well become China's main competition to being the worlds manufacturing center for the west. Also Russia has to play nice with europe for the time being since they are their main oil buyers, least until the pipeline to china is finished.

But other then that yes, nationalism has it's place. So do armies, we should not become complacent and lazy about our defense. I doubt that most will listen or even bother to think too far into the future about things like that, most people these days are more interested in entertaining themselves, or finding the next thing to entertain themselves with. Pride in where you live, I guess that's just no longer acceptable.

Quite sad to see the decay of a once great military power. I just hope the foriegn legion is not hit to badly. The history and the beliefs of it are remarkable and interesting.

[HoreTore]

Somehow I doubt a russian invasion of Norway anytime soon. Call me crazy

Well, it's not that far off, seeing as how we have several border and resource disputes with them...

Nice Hore but with one weak point.
Russkies will not behave like Americans - only like nazis in Russia.
They will kill you all into 3 - 4 years.

It doesn't matter if you want a military or not, but eventually, sometime in the future of your country, you will need one. War in the Western World is not a thing of the past, and I doubt it ever will be.

No, see that's the point. Having a military won't do even a tiny bit of difference to the outcome. The best we can do, is a guerrilla war.

[JR-]

the choice is always individual, and i make no judgments, but i would not want to live in a nation were the collective response to invasion by a neighbouring state is resignation.

[HoreTore]

the choice is always individual, and i make no judgments, but i would not want to live in a nation were the collective response to invasion by a neighbouring state is resignation.

I'd rather call it reality. The reality is; Russia is bigger than us. A lot bigger. We have no chance to win a conventional war. Or even cause some damage.

If we want to make a stand, if we want to fight back, a guerrilla war is the way to go. That's the one thing that can have any effect besides wasting lives.

And it will be that way whether we want it or not, whether we waste the lives of thousands of soldiers first or not. Since I'm not a big fan of cannon fodder, I say we scrap the army and go straight for the guerrilla's.

[Fragony]

Oh boy is europe ripe for the picking, to even consider that your country doesn't need an army is so naive, you will be teared apart.

[JR-]

I'd rather call it reality. The reality is; Russia is bigger than us. A lot bigger. We have no chance to win a conventional war. Or even cause some damage.

If we want to make a stand, if we want to fight back, a guerrilla war is the way to go. That's the one thing that can have any effect besides wasting lives.

And it will be that way whether we want it or not, whether we waste the lives of thousands of soldiers first or not. Since I'm not a big fan of cannon fodder, I say we scrap the army and go straight for the guerrilla's.

that is different, that is not resignation :)

[Ironside]

No, see that's the point. Having a military won't do even a tiny bit of difference to the outcome. The best we can do, is a guerrilla war.

You can keep them busy until some you allied with decide to show up, but I agree fully on a 1 vs 1.

[Tribesman]

Oh boy is europe ripe for the picking, to even consider that your country doesn't need an army is so naive, you will be teared apart.

By who ? the same people who are tearing Iceland apart

[Fragony]

By who ? the same people who are tearing Iceland apart

Wouldn't be the first time russian tanks are too close for comfort near scandinavia and I am not talking about ww2. Think they are very concerned with that circus in brussels? Of course we need strong armies, if only because it's so very very cool.

[KrooK]

Sorry Hore but ... did you hear me. Guerrilla works when enemy does not want kill all population.
If Russia invade Norway - they would surround you, take your capitulation, send to special camps and murder into <happy now Sarmatian !!!!>nearby forests. All of you - men, women and children. After this guerrilla war will be perfomed by .... elks.