French Army

[dilloduck]

Maybe what makes Americans angry at the French is it's isolationism and the way it pressures the rest of the EU countries to do the same thing. If the French choose this path,they are in no postion to complain about other countries actions to secure world stability. You have to earn the right to criticize. How has France earned theirs?

 

[CSM]

German turn around the Maginot line.
the conception was excellent, but the placement was bad.
And in was 64 years ago. Things change

I agree with you CSM.
except on the point of the Inetlligence : the french intelligence is really good. several elite units are intelligence unit - example : 17e Hussard -.
These units can do everything and always be unvisible.
They're really good.
And the french special forces are excellent. the GIGN is the better-know, but it is not the better. even the specila force do intelligence mission, some of them are only fot that. THe french military in,telligence is really excellent.
If you spoke of the civil intelligence, it's different. I think that like you said, the structure can be changed.

But I agree about the command, some thing have too change....but it is in the way to.

When I say Intelligence, I mean the personnel and tools used to analyze the information gathered on the battlefield (info gathered by the units you list, including the Special Ops) and the ability to pass actionable information to the command structure so they can make informed decisions. Both the Intelligence and Surveillance (surveillance meaning things like UAVs, sattellites and other sensor platforms) part of the French army are not up to par with other Western military organiuzations. The French Reconnaissance units are well equipped and well trained and, as you point out, good at what they do.

 

[padisha emperor]

OK

for the intelligence problem, the french HQ is in the way to chnage it : a new system will be launched : the BOA - Bulle Opérationnelle Aéroterrestre -
3 components : firts : engines to explore the situation, and send their informations to the second component. aerial drones and terrestrial drones will be use.
second : other engines will carry the deciders and operators away of the ennemy direct fire.
Third : weapons will be taken by a third type of engines. this third component could use lots of difference vehicles. they will obey to the orders of the 2 first components.

 

[CSM]

OK

for the intelligence problem, the french HQ is in the way to chnage it : a new system will be launched : the BOA - Bulle Opérationnelle Aéroterrestre -
3 components : firts : engines to explore the situation, and send their informations to the second component. aerial drones and terrestrial drones will be use.
second : other engines will carry the deciders and operators away of the ennemy direct fire.
Third : weapons will be taken by a third type of engines. this third component could use lots of difference vehicles. they will obey to the orders of the 2 first components.

Yes, there is a big push among all the militaries of the world to modernize their command and intelligence structures. It is a complicated and expensive task.

 

[CSM]

Maybe what makes Americans angry at the French is it's isolationism and the way it pressures the rest of the EU countries to do the same thing. If the French choose this path,they are in no postion to complain about other countries actions to secure world stability. You have to earn the right to criticize. How has France earned theirs?

The US has always had rocky relations with the French. Even before the American Revolution there was on again/off again, love/hate stuff going on in the colonies.

In my opinion, what sways a lot of opinion in the US is a perceived hypocracy on the part of the French in their opposition to the US's stance on foreign relations and then France taking advantage (both overtly and clandestinely) of world events to their own advantage. For example, the French are highly critical of the US's interest in foreign oil, but at the same time pursues foreign arms sales, despite international agreements (which they agreed to) banning such sales.

 

[dilloduck]

The US has always had rocky relations with the French. Even before the American Revolution there was on again/off again, love/hate stuff going on in the colonies.

In my opinion, what sways a lot of opinion in the US is a perceived hypocracy on the part of the French in their opposition to the US's stance on foreign relations and then France taking advantage (both overtly and clandestinely) of world events to their own advantage. For example, the French are highly critical of the US's interest in foreign oil, but at the same time pursues foreign arms sales, despite international agreements (which they agreed to) banning such sales.

oh ya--that too!!

 

[padisha emperor]

Maybe, but it is the french government.
this informantion was not well known before.

For myself, i was not for this war, but it was not hypocrite.

I only don't accept that a country do war when it please to it.
It's a kind of despotic justice.

 

[dilloduck]

Maybe, but it is the french government.
this informantion was not well known before.

For myself, i was not for this war, but it was not hypocrite.

I only don't accept that a country do war when it please to it.
It's a kind of despotic justice.

What would France do if a country killed 3,000 innocent Frenchmen and promised to kill more?

 

[CSM]

Maybe, but it is the french government.
this informantion was not well known before.

For myself, i was not for this war, but it was not hypocrite.

I only don't accept that a country do war when it please to it.
It's a kind of despotic justice.

That is what being a sovreign power means: being able to decide as a nation on issues of military, economic, political matters, etc. It is not for France to decide when United States security is at risk, neither is it for the US to decide when France goes to war. They may (and do) try to influence each other in a variety of ways, but the final decision belongs to the individual nation. In my opinion, it would be just downright wrong for the United States to subvert the US Constitution to the UN Charter. If that EVER happened, I guess I would have to become an "insurgent"!

 

[padisha emperor]

That is what being a sovreign power means: being able to decide as a nation on issues of military, economic, political matters, etc. It is not for France to decide when United States security is at risk, neither is it for the US to decide when France goes to war. They may (and do) try to influence each other in a variety of ways, but the final decision belongs to the individual nation. In my opinion, it would be just downright wrong for the United States to subvert the US Constitution to the UN Charter. If that EVER happened, I guess I would have to become an "insurgent"!

ok.
But then, to take your argues, let France take it own decision for the war.

For your last sentence : I will speak of France : the Constitution is at the top of the rules' pyramid. It is the most important. but when France want to ratificate an international text, and when some dispositions are not agree with Constitution....we changed the things in the Constitution who are opposed with the text. It is logic : we would not change the text, because it is an INTERNATIONAL text. But the Constitution is always at the top, because France decides or not to sign this text. No obligation to do it.

So i don't tell you to subvert the US Constitution to the UN charters, but only to respect what you've signed. For France also, about the trade of weapons. UN charters is not superior. but If USA aproove it and ratificated it.....

What would France do if a country killed 3,000 innocent Frenchmen and promised to kill more?

For the moment, fortunatly, it is not happened.
But if it was the case, I think, like I said before, that france will not attack the whole contry, but just the terrorists, with special forces.

 

[dilloduck]

ok.
But then, to take your argues, let France take it own decision for the war.

For your last sentence : I will speak of France : the Constitution is at the top of the rules' pyramid. It is the most important. but when France want to ratificate an international text, and when some dispositions are not agree with Constitution....we changed the things in the Constitution who are opposed with the text. It is logic : we would not change the text, because it is an INTERNATIONAL text. But the Constitution is always at the top, because France decides or not to sign this text. No obligation to do it.

So i don't tell you to subvert the US Constitution to the UN charters, but only to respect what you've signed. For France also, about the trade of weapons. UN charters is not superior. but If USA aproove it and ratificated it.....





For the moment, fortunatly, it is not happened.
But if it was the case, I think, like I said before, that france will not attack the whole contry, but just the terrorists, with special forces.

pick off the enemy one at a time?---you better hope there aren't very many of em. The US has thousands of enemies to deal with.

How about assasination of leaders? Would that be part of Frances' strategy?

 

[CSM]

ok.
... I will speak of France : the Constitution is at the top of the rules' pyramid. It is the most important. but when France want to ratificate an international text, and when some dispositions are not agree with Constitution....we changed the things in the Constitution who are opposed with the text. ...

Exactly my point. I have no desire to see our Constitution changed because the international community thinks it needs to be changed. Obviously, you think France must accommodate the desires of other countries over the desires of its own citizens.

So i don't tell you to subvert the US Constitution to the UN charters, but only to respect what you've signed. For France also, about the trade of weapons. UN charters is not superior. but If USA aproove it and ratificated it.....

Just because the United States signed and ratifies the UN charter, does not mean that we will disregard our own security. There is no major power on the planet that has not tried to circumvent a UN resolution at one time or another. France happened to get caught this time. Did the French respect what they signed?

 

[padisha emperor]

Originally Posted by padisha emperor
ok.
... I will speak of France : the Constitution is at the top of the rules' pyramid. It is the most important. but when France want to ratificate an international text, and when some dispositions are not agree with Constitution....we changed the things in the Constitution who are opposed with the text. ...





Exactly my point. I have no desire to see our Constitution changed because the international community thinks it needs to be changed. Obviously, you think France must accommodate the desires of other countries over the desires of its own citizens.

bad faith : read the message until the end :

the Constitution is at the top of the rules' pyramid. It is the most important. but when France want to ratificate an international text, and when some dispositions are not agree with Constitution....we changed the things in the Constitution who are opposed with the text. It is logic : we would not change the text, because it is an INTERNATIONAL text. But the Constitution is always at the top, because France decides or not to sign this text. No obligation to do it.

See : if France want to sign a international text, it is because france think that it will be in it own interest : it will be good for france. or it means that France agree the text's dispositions.
So,France will sign it. But when the text has disposition not in conformity with the french Consitution, what we will do ? change the text ? noooooooo....it would be stupid, and impossible : why ? because this text has been signed by other nation. And France have to sign the same text, without changes...it is logic - what will say USA if France sign a different text as they sign too ? they won't agree... -

So France change the Constitution - only the points with which the text is not in conformity - . The procedure is complex. But the Constitution's revision is done by : the Congrès, reunion of the Parliament in Versailles, specially for that ; or by the french people, with a referendum.
You see : the popluation or the representants of it decide to change or not the Constitution.
It is democratic, it is the desire of the people.....



Adn really not at all an obligation : if we do'nt want to change some points of the Constitution, we do not it.
If France doesn't want to sign the text, the Constitution will be not modificated too.....

 

[CSM]

Again, my point is that I have no desire to see the US Constitution changed because of international ANYTHING. Period.

The US Constitution can also be changed in a complex process. Changing it to accomadate an international agreement is a dangerous thing to do. THAT IS MY BELIEF.

I understand what you are saying, however. That is why any treaty signed by the US has to be ratified by Congress or it is invalid.

 

[padisha emperor]

...i not agree.
if the international text is for you, for your interests, if it can help you, or preserve the peace in the wolrd....and several other things, it would be good for you to sign it.

If you sign, it is not the proof that your Constitution is less imortant, the COnstitution is always the most important, it is the proof that you're in a constitutionnal right state, not a legal right state.

In France, some things CAN NOT be change in the COnstitution. it is the samle thing in the US one ? the most important thngs, the things that the country is a democratic country, with democratic institutions....and several other things can not be change.

 

[dilloduck]

...i not agree.
if the international text is for you, for your interests, if it can help you, or preserve the peace in the wolrd....and several other things, it would be good for you to sign it.

If you sign, it is not the proof that your Constitution is less imortant, the COnstitution is always the most important, it is the proof that you're in a constitutionnal right state, not a legal right state.

In France, some things CAN NOT be change in the COnstitution. it is the samle thing in the US one ? the most important thngs, the things that the country is a democratic country, with democratic institutions....and several other things can not be change.

Maybe you can change your behavior. Does the French constitution allow France to illegally trade with countries that are under UN sanction?. Perhaps the US should have asked for France to be punished by the UN prior to punishing Iraq.

 

[CSM]

...i not agree.
if the international text is for you, for your interests, if it can help you, or preserve the peace in the wolrd....and several other things, it would be good for you to sign it.

If you sign, it is not the proof that your Constitution is less imortant, the COnstitution is always the most important, it is the proof that you're in a constitutionnal right state, not a legal right state.

In France, some things CAN NOT be change in the COnstitution. it is the samle thing in the US one ? the most important thngs, the things that the country is a democratic country, with democratic institutions....and several other things can not be change.

I think this discussion highlights the great difference between European thinking and the thinking of some of the citizens of the US. Naturally, if a treaty is in our best interests, we should and probably will sign it. There is no other reason I can think of that we should or would sign any treaty. World peace is not enough and I will demonstrate via exageration why:

There are many throughout the world who believe that world peace would be enhanced by the disolution of the state of Israel. there are also those who believe world peace will be enhanced by the disolutiuon of the United States.
Neither of those are viable options.

When a treaty is in our best interest AND happens to preserve world peace then it is the best of both worlds. If it happens to preserve world peace but is not in our best interests, then we SHOULD NOT sign it. In my opinion, the US SHOULD NEVER SIGN ANYTHING THAT IS NOT IN ITS BEST INTERSTS. For that, you may call me arrogant!

 

[padisha emperor]

To reassure you, I think that there is no states who want to sign a such treaty, about the USA 's existenz.

When I spoke of the world peace, it was an example......of course this is impossible to assure the world peace, even if the nations who signed respect the treaty, other who didn't sign will not respect...

It was an example....

We are in agreement, Constitution is above all.

But don't you believe that a country can sign a treaty even if itr is not directly for it interests, but if it is for the welfare of the world ? Like the Kyoto protocol - example -

If a nation is able to sign a treaty even if it is not for itself but for the World, it is not a proof of weakness, but a proof of politic courage, of responsability.

 

[padisha emperor]

Maybe you can change your behavior. Does the French constitution allow France to illegally trade with countries that are under UN sanction?. Perhaps the US should have asked for France to be punished by the UN prior to punishing Iraq

I've already explain that and answer to a quite same question, I'll find it and put it here ...

 

[CSM]

To reassure you, I think that there is no states who want to sign a such treaty, about the USA 's existenz.

When I spoke of the world peace, it was an example......of course this is impossible to assure the world peace, even if the nations who signed respect the treaty, other who didn't sign will not respect...

It was an example....

We are in agreement, Constitution is above all.

But don't you believe that a country can sign a treaty even if itr is not directly for it interests, but if it is for the welfare of the world ? Like the Kyoto protocol - example -

If a nation is able to sign a treaty even if it is not for itself but for the World, it is not a proof of weakness, but a proof of politic courage, of responsability.

Sometimes the best interests of a country happen to coincide with the best interests of the world. Most often not, however. Perhaps another point on which we will have to agree to disagree.