Defence of the Realm?

[observer]

Seems in these times of austerity, that we may be entering into a military asset sharing arrangement with the French. Thought we were all in NATO anyway? And that being the case, why do we spend more of our GDP on defence than any other European State?

[Evil Sid]

america

[Lt Kije]

Don't know where you got your figures Obs, mine come from the CIA web site, France spends more than we do

 

France 2.6% GDP

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/fr.html

 

UK 2.4% GDP

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/uk.html

 

[Lt Kije]

Also found this, France does spend more than the UK

 

http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending

[Bazj]

Not many of their soldiers dying in Afghanistan though eh?

[Lt Kije]

Got to admire the French for that, they are not an American lap dog

[observer]

Picked that info up from Newsnight, so I'll let you argue it out with Jeremy Paxman! However, back to the point: how can we "share" military assets with another Country? Just imagine if Maggy had asked to use a Carrier and some planes for the Falklands Campaign? Which reminds me, wern't the Argies using French Exocet missiles?!

[Lt Kije]

Obs the British did recieve America's help during the Falklands War

[observer]

We were also set boundaries by them too!

[Lt Kije]

France as far as I know is the only Country in Europe to maintain a fully independent armed Forces in Europe, In that they can get their troops anywhere in the World on their own. They are in NATO but can fight independently of NATO if need be. We rely on NATO and the Americans.

[observer]

The French refused to join NATO under DeGaulle, but has since joined. Don't think we "rely" on NATO or the US, for Ops, maybe intell sharing - but as we can see from the Afghanistan debacle, NATO member commitment appears variable and less than uniform. We have committed around 10,000 to this futile war, well above our Euro neighbours - which poses the question, are we paying more in ??????s, as well as blood?

[Lt Kije]

The UK does not maintain the ability to move lots of troops round the World nor can it supply them for extended periods, not enough ships, and if we did decide in invade another Country outside Europe we would struggle to give them air support, We have two small carriers that have to be used together, so when they had to resupply their would be no cover. The two new Super Carriers that are in the pipe line would cure it if they are ever built. Simply put the UK Armed Forces are very under resourced for playing peace keeper around the world

[observer]

Precisely, so let's forget about trying to be an Empire and concentrate on Home defence and security.

[Freeborn John]

Got to admire the French for that, they are not an American lap dog

If the Dollar takes a prat fall in Afghanistan the Euro gets a nice little boost, if I was the French I'd sit on my hands too.

[Lt Kije]

If the euro goes up so will the ?

 

The French are in Afghanistan

[Freeborn John]

It's hard to imagine a situation where confidence in the ? goes through the roof after a debacle in Afghanistan.

The French are indeed in Afghanistan. Sitting on their hands.

[asperity]

NATO troops in Afghanistan as at 6th August 2010

 

USA 78430 65.5% of total

UK 9500 7.9%

Germany 4590 3.8%

France 3750 3.1%

 

and a load of other countries with smaller numbers

[Lt Kije]

Are the French sitting on their hands, I would like to know where you got your info from They have dead as well.

 

[Freeborn John]

UK killed in action 292

French killed in action 38

German killed in action 33

Looks like Labour are willing to throw our bravest and best away where others won't.

[Lt Kije]

What away to measure

 

They have less dead so they are sitting on their hands

 

Have you ever thought it could be down to the fact that they might have better equipment ie more helicopters, or the way they go out on patrol, ie with more fire power

 

I find the way you measure abit strange, the more dead the better, If you put your measure to work on the second World War, The Russians come out very well

 

Ps

The French had 58 dead when I looked

[Freeborn John]

The figures prove that British troops are being put in harms way by the British government in a way which other nations troops are not.

This cynical waste of life cannot be excused away by silly claims of inferior tactics, the professionalism of the British forces is second to none.

It seems that one government is prepared to pursue it's political ends at the cost of many lives while other governments are keeping their troops out of combat in pursuit of theirs.

But that's Labour for you...

[observer]

NATO was set up to defend W/Europe against a Warsaw Pact assault, during the period of the cold war. A clear mission with presumably a cohesive force contributed by it's various members. and lined up along the Iron Curtain. However, with the end of the cold war and the break up of the Soviet Empire, it was basically an orgainisation without a purpose, and imo should/could have been disbanded and it's assets redesignated to possibly a UN role. However, the powers that be, decided to widen it's remit by interventions in the Balkans and subsequently Afghanistan; however, for some strange reason, this organisation seems to have lossed some of it's cohesion, with troop commitment to Afghanistan appearing to be voluntary and variable. The Canadians and Dutch are (wisely) pulling out, whilst the British are punching well above their weight by Bliar's commitment to Bush's Wars. Bliar has no regrets at this commitment, and indeed, now confirms his Messianic megalomania, by suggesting that military intervention in Iran and Muslim fundementalism should be an option. He, and many current politicians, are in denial that such interventions are seen by hitherto moderate Muslims as Christian "Crusades", now proven to radicalise them. From Bush's pusuit posse of US special forces chasing Bin Laden into the mountains of Afghanistan, politicians justified a growing involvement, by the notion that it would make the streets of Britain and the US "safer". Sadly not; the London bombers were all home grown. The Taliban is now an enemy of the West, rather than being focused on a domestic agenda, and Al Quaeda have moved on to other safe havens, such as Somalia and the Yemen. SO - if we subscribe to the theory set out by the likes of Bliar - we should be invading those "safe havens" too, in some never ending Crusade against radical Islam. Obviously an option beyond the capacity of even the mighty US or the inclination of NATO allies; thus not an option - therefore, time to withdraw from the debacle and re-think our strategy.

[Lt Kije]

The figures prove that British troops are being put in harms way by the British government in a way which other nations troops are not.

 

No they do not

 

Are you familar with French and British tactics, How do you know that the professionalism of the French army is less than the British.

 

And to think that any other mainstream political party would have not gone in with the Americans at the time is very naive

[asperity]

Except you will find the Warsaw pact was designed to defend against the imagined threat to the Eastern Bloc from NATO as it was signed in 1955, 6 years AFTER the North Atlantic Treaty (1949)

[Freeborn John]

The figures prove that British troops are being put in harms way by the British government in a way which other nations troops are not.

 

No they do not

 

Are you familar with French and British tactics, How do you know that the professionalism of the French army is less than the British.

 

And to think that any other mainstream political party would have not gone in with the Americans at the time is very naive

 

Yes, they plainly do.

 

Nowhere have I stated that the calibre of one nations troops is lower than another, I believe it was you who lamely suggested that superior French tactics explained those awful figures.

Look up the Rules of Engagement laid down for their troops by the different nations for an explanation of what's really going on...

Hint; some troops are so deliberately hamstrung by their politicians that they can't do much more than stay in camp.

 

It was Labour who entangled us in the whole Middle East mess, no one else, I doubt that any other party at the time was steered by such an unprincipled US lackey, liar and war criminal as Blair, it's unfair to claim that any other party would have done the same.