France says ready to punish Syria despite British no vote

France says ready to punish Syria despite British no vote

www.reuters.com

(Reuters) - France said on Friday it still backed action to punish Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's government for an apparent poison gas attack on civilians, despite a British parliamentary vote against it.

An aide to Russian President Vladimir Putin, a close Assad ally, seized on the British no vote as evidence that "people are beginning to understand" the dangers of military action.

U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said his country would keep seeking an international coalition to act together on Syria, where hundreds of people were killed in last week's reported chemical attac

(visit the link for the full news article)

And just when I thought things were beginning to look up...

The British parliament acted on behalf of it's citizenry by voting against military action in Syria. I was hoping, naively, that at least France would follow suit, and perhaps that our own American government would finally see that intervening in Syria is not what the vast majority of the people want.

Sadly, it appears the French government is lockstep with the current American administration.

For how many years have the US and France disagreed, and now, on something this disasterous they agree???

www.reuters.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Great just what America needs backing it up. A nation who's main battle cry is "we surrender".

Originally posted by buster2010
Great just what America needs backing it up. A nation who's main battle cry is "we surrender".

France has been blood thirsty lately. The old way of france and those jokes are obselete. French started the war with libya. The french are just trying to avenge their former self. Proving to the world they can fight. This means they are ddangerous

reply to post by Dreine


Britain will still be involved if France goes ahead.

French-British Defence & Security Co-operation

Just not militarily. Quite interesting just what co-operation we have with one another as nations.

Here's just some snippets that stood out for me.

Air to air refuelling and passenger air transport. We are currently investigating the potential to use spare capacity that may be available in the UK’s Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft (FSTA) programme to meet the needs of France for air to air refuelling and military air transport, provided it is financially acceptable to both nations.

And..

Combined Joint Expeditionary Force. We will develop a Combined Joint Expeditionary Force suitable for a wide range of scenarios, up to and including high intensity operations. It will involve all three Services: there will be a land component comprised of formations at national brigade level, maritime and air components with their associated Headquarters, and logistics and support functions. It will not involve standing forces but will be available at notice for bilateral, NATO, European Union, United Nations or other operations. We will begin with combined air and land exercises during 2011 and will develop the concept before the next UK-France Summit and progress towards full capability in subsequent years. The Force will stimulate greater interoperability and coherence in military doctrine, training and equipment requirements.

Plenty more in the link, so as it stands Britain has an obligation to France. We are helping if they go in, no doubts about that.

Originally posted by buster2010
Great just what America needs backing it up. A nation who's main battle cry is "we surrender".

Actually the French have a strong history of wars, they actually won a lot of them too.

reply to post by Jordan River

France has been blood thirsty lately. The old way of france and those jokes are obselete. French started the war with libya. The french are just trying to avenge their former self. Proving to the world they can fight. This means they are ddangerous

France has always been a nation of war just like any other European nation, it's just been down on it's luck the last century. After all Europe did have two big wars right on top of it. They loved a good revolution too, always been a dangerous bunch should look up the Napoleons or Charles Martel. Hardly a "We Surrender" crowd back then.

Send in the French that sounds like the perfect solution!

One thing though, when was the last time the French won a non-civil war without significant aid of other nations?

Answer is some time before they were conquered by the Romans! LoL

All it is is an excuse to get in there and try and take over the country or depose the monarche

It saddens me that, on a forum consisting of bright minds and deep thinkers, that the moronic anti-french sentiment born out of complete ignorance that was thought up by the supporters of the Bush administration when France stepped out of the Iraq conflict (correctly, as it turns out) is still being posted.

If the French feel they must intervene here, then it is their decision. Their armed forces are the second best trained in Europe and are more than capable of carrying out any task assigned to them. It's not like they are strangers working in co-operation with other nations, the Libya conflict and the first Gulf War are prime examples of how well they can contribute.

Originally posted by neformore
It saddens me that, on a forum consisting of bright minds and deep thinkers, that the moronic anti-french sentiment born out of complete ignorance that was thought up by the supporters of the Bush administration when France stepped out of the Iraq conflict (correctly, as it turns out) is still being posted.

If the French feel they must intervene here, then it is their decision. Their armed forces are the second best trained in Europe and are more than capable of carrying out any task assigned to them. It's not like they are strangers working in co-operation with other nations, the Libya conflict and the first Gulf War are prime examples of how well they can contribute.

Europe needs their oil independence from Russian oil... How hypocritical of them, when its our oil its NOOOO dont invade.

When its theirs, its INVADE.

Typical, they need the pipeline built, it will free them from reliance on Russia, and will fill the pockets of the Saudis.

WIN WIN for everyone, well everyone accept the countries in the way of the pipeline...

Originally posted by buster2010
Great just what America needs backing it up. A nation who's main battle cry is "we surrender".

That was in the past, France could send out the French Foreign Legion, they are one of the world's toughest fighting forces who don't even think of surrender, they will fight to the last man.

Originally posted by buster2010
Great just what America needs backing it up. A nation who's main battle cry is "we surrender".

Thats such BS, france has a long history of war, we wouldn't be a Nation if not for france.

Funny how easy people buy into the propaganda, the french resistance in WW2 was ruthless, even if their government wasn't.

And they where G.D. Right about Iraq.

It is a bit of an sensation article.

German chancellor Angela Merkel and French president François Hollande have met and are sharing the same view that there should be a reaction from the international communion on the use of chemical weapons.
It does not say anything about military action against Syria, and action should be taken after the UN has reported its findings.

Well the above is from dutch media

The french were the strongest army in the world in 1500 and continue to show that

Although the French National Assembly meets on Wednesday to discuss this, there's nothing in the constitution which prevents President Hollande from ordering French forces in. It's his call. But as with UK, the parliamentary opposition is against involvement. That means the President must tread carefully.

I doubt he'll order forces in before the deputies have a chance to discuss this, but by all accounts this doesn't accommodate the attack timetable either. I might be wrong though.

The French have always been free spirited *cough* in defense and foreign affairs. I can't see Britain's position as the USA's number one ally being usurped anytime soon, nor is it a special relationship that French people would want, if I'm honest (I don't mean that disrespectfully).

The Nazi occupation of France in WW2 left a deep scar on the French psyche. Some people acquiesced with the occupiers (especially those in the ruling classes). Some tried to protect their families by keeping their heads down. Others fled to Britain and continued the fight from there. And a true hard core ... very many brave people ... fought the Nazis in France for years as part of the Resistance. They suffered most terribly.

What united France after the war was a reckoning. Collaborators were dealt with severely. But we also were brought together by a resolve that war should always be the very last option and that France would never be invaded again, that we'll never have to rely on any other nation for our own defense.

That's why France has it's own tanks, airplanes, warships, missiles & nuclear weapons. Our military kit is often more expensive and less sophisticated than it's US equivalent. We don't have the fingers on the trigger, unlike USA and UK, it's not cowardice or scaredness, it's just not our thing. And unless you visit France or converse with it's people you'll just never understand our mindset.

Too often the anti-French rhetoric on ATS has gone unchallenged. It's so prevalent now that it passes as part of the regular political discourse on this website. It's an awful shame.

Some of you need to let it go.

Today an opinion survey in Le Parisien newspaper says that 64% of those polled are against French participation in strikes against Syria. Reasons given include the belief that a fundamentalist government will take over Syria after Assad is deposed, that the whole region will end up at war, that there's a lack of evidence that Assad was responsible for the poison gas attacks against civilians.

C’est un non franc et massif. Selon un sondage réalisé par l’institut BVA pour i > télé - CQFD - « le Parisien » et « Aujourd’hui en France », les Français sont très majoritairement hostiles à une participation de notre pays à une intervention militaire (64 %) contre le régime de Bachar
al-Assad.

Le Parisien

The French media are reporting Secretary of State Kerry's comments about France being the USA's "oldest ally" as a diplomatic slap against Great Britain/UK. I can't deny there's some humor going about at the expense of the British, but mainly the sentiment is that Great Britain/UK has been treated terribly & that France should tell Kerry to stick his "oldest friendship" where the sun doesn't shine. And that France should have nothing further to do with war in Syria.

There's also a hope that if the special relationship between USA & Great Britain is now at an end, that maybe Great Britain can re-engage with the EU, if not at least with the other countries of the British Commonwealth. There's no desire anywhere, as I can see, for France to replace Great Britain as no.1 best friend of USA.

Il a suffi d'un vote. Puis d'une phrase. Et c'est toute la "relation spéciale" entre la Grande-Bretagne et les Etats-Unis qui s'est trouvée ébranlée. Le vote – celui des députés britanniques, qui ont refusé, jeudi soir, par 285 voix contre 272, toute action armée en Syrie – constitue un "couac" historique dans les relations diplomatiques entre Londres et Washington.
La phrase, c'est celle du secrétaire d'Etat américain, John Kerry, décrivant vendredi 30 août la France comme "notre plus ancienne alliée" ("Our oldest allies"), au moment d'égrainer la maigre liste (France, Australie et Ligue arabe) de pays susceptibles de participer à une intervention contre Damas. Sans évoquer, à aucun moment, le rôle de la Grande-Bretagne. Un "oubli" qui a réveillé la susceptibilité – et l'inquiétude – des Britanniques favorables à une intervention armée et attachés à leur relation privilégiée avec Washington.

Le Monde

reply to post by neformore


Doubly ironic, given that without the support of the French during the Revolutionary War, it's debatable the USA would exist in the form it currently does.