French Ministers Calls on Patriotic Citizens to Become Reservists
49 replies, posted
[QUOTE=NoDachshund;50724957]no but they realize they need more to keep the soldier unions quiet
understand now?
or do you want to go back to talking about america LOL[/QUOTE]
You do realize that at this point the only one bringing up America is you, friend.
[QUOTE=Kyle902;50724965]You do realize that at this point the only one bringing up America is you, friend.[/QUOTE]
Was "this point" an imaginary line you drew above post #25 LOL
i'm allowed to tease for Americentrism
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americentrism[/url]
[QUOTE=NoDachshund;50724972]Was "this point" an imaginary line you drew above post #25 LOL[/QUOTE]
Nope.
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50724769]The question was, "is the French army understaffed?" The answer was, "well NATO does pretty much rely on the USA for military strength."
I'm not sure what your issue is or why you're shitposting.[/QUOTE]
While I agree that it was relevant in context, I thought it was funny that scorpius completely missed the gimmick alt's point that Americans flex their military power when it's uncalled for, then proceeded to perfectly illustrate it by doing some uncalled for flexing of his own
i'm not a gimmick alt :C
but i'm glad you saw it
I wonder if France can call in NATO if it feels the need to bolster its security
[QUOTE=Kyle902;50725002]I wonder if France can call in NATO if it feels the need to bolster its security[/QUOTE]
Well if Turkey didn't last night...
[QUOTE=NoDachshund;50725011]Well if Turkey didn't last night...[/QUOTE]
Thats a different situation entirely. Elements of the Turkish military were fighting against itself and the government, it would've been nigh impossible to coordinate with loyalist forces. The coup also only lasted a day so NATO wouldn't exactly have had time to organize a response regardless.
Meanwhile in this situation all France is really asking for is some troops to help them guard their borders.
Also I wonder if France could invoke article 5 over the repeated attacks
[editline]16th July 2016[/editline]
I mean the US did invoke it during 9/11 which means there is a precedent for invoking it due to terrorist attacks.
They need a bigger counter terrorism task force rather than the army if they wanna combat terrorism.
Quicker deployment of spec ops will reduce casualties
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;50724980]While I agree that it was relevant in context, I thought it was funny that scorpius completely missed the gimmick alt's point that Americans flex their military power when it's uncalled for, then proceeded to perfectly illustrate it by doing some uncalled for flexing of his own[/QUOTE]
But that's irrelevant. We constantly send help for this kind of shit to our allies, not just during wars. Idk why this guy thinks it's 'classic American thinking' when it's a raw fact. We help all our allies with their shit cause most of their militaries suck nut
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;50724980]While I agree that it was relevant in context, I thought it was funny that scorpius completely missed the gimmick alt's point that Americans flex their military power when it's uncalled for, then proceeded to perfectly illustrate it by doing some uncalled for flexing of his own[/QUOTE]Quite frankly it is [I]extremely[/I] irritating to hear constant moronic comments, it's a never-ending fountain of bullshit and it instantly puts us on the defensive. That's part of the reason why I'm increasingly leaning toward isolationism. Despite everything the rest of the world truly needs to fuck off for a few decades, I'm not sure we're wanted anymore so it's best to just look inward and let foreigners do whatever the hell they were going to do.
[QUOTE=No Party Hats;50725494]But that's irrelevant. We constantly send help for this kind of shit to our allies, not just during wars. Idk why this guy thinks it's 'classic American thinking' when it's a raw fact. We help all our allies with their shit cause most of their militaries suck nut[/QUOTE]I wouldn't say the military forces of Europe suck, they're just small and under-equipped in a lot of cases and rely on us for one thing or another. Our massive, [U]massive[/U] military budget could be pumped directly into NATO countries and the end result would still result in a capable and effective international fighting force.
I'd never discount the effectiveness of our allies, in some cases they exceed our capabilities by specializing with their smaller forces. (looking at you, Norway)
[editline]17th July 2016[/editline]
None of this really has anything to do with France's government essentially going, "yeah but you're like, not a soldier so how can you know about guns?????" There's probably some other way to put that, but no matter how you break it down it reads like a Youtube comment.
Yeah sorry I mean like comparing assets wise. At the end of the day a lot of these countries don't have the resources to maintain a long term defense against these kind of attacks
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;50724238]Every country in NATO sorta relies on the United States for defense. They wouldn't hold a stick to anything really if shit hit the fan.[/QUOTE]
Yeah but who would the threat be? NATO expenditures minus the US are still higher than that of Russia and China combined.
France does actually spend the 2% NATO requires countries to spend on their military last time I checked.
Increasing the number of soldiers in the French army wouldn't have stopped any of the terrorist attacks that have happened in France. Unless you plan on having soldiers posted at literally every single public place and event at all times.
[QUOTE=No Party Hats;50725579]Yeah sorry I mean like comparing assets wise. At the end of the day a lot of these countries don't have the resources to maintain a long term defense against these kind of attacks[/QUOTE]
What has the army got to do with a truck driving down people in the street? Europe might have fairly small armies, and we'd obviously need help against someone like Russia, but terrorist attacks?
[QUOTE=No Party Hats;50725579]Yeah sorry I mean like comparing assets wise. At the end of the day a lot of these countries don't have the resources to maintain a long term defense against these kind of attacks[/QUOTE]Hm, that's funny because Europe never once struck me as strapped for resources and I'm [I]pretty sure[/I] that have police over there. There's also this:
[QUOTE=RainbowStalin;50726158]Increasing the number of soldiers in the French army wouldn't have stopped any of the terrorist attacks that have happened in France. Unless you plan on having soldiers posted at literally every single public place and event at all times.[/QUOTE]
Even if this were true I don't see how they could have stopped this from happening, it would still end in a truck plowing into at least [I]some[/I] people before being stopped.
If you watch videos from the Nice attack basically as soon as the truck stopped it was surrounded by police and the driver had been shot. Unless they had physically blocked off all the roads there was nothing more they could have done.
[QUOTE=RainbowStalin;50726862]If you watch videos from the Nice attack basically as soon as the truck stopped it was surrounded by police and the driver had been shot. Unless they had physically blocked off all the roads there was nothing more they could have done.[/QUOTE]
IIRC that's what a lot of countries do, they make sure that most high-profile areas will be impossible to just drive along with a truck by placing bollards and the like along it
The US, while a disproportionately large component of NATO military potential, is credited mostly with the upkeep and support of NATO military infrastructure and logistics. European member armies, working in unison, remain a force to be reckoned with in terms of raw military strength, easily able to defeat or at the very least superbly rival Russia and any other threat in conventional warfare. Outside of the EU, however, it's the US's massive logistics capacity that allows NATO armies to project force globally on the scale and volume that they do now. If the US ceased all cooperation, NATO armies would be heavily limited in their scope and volume of both operational range and flexibility.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.