Posted on 09/16/2007 12:07:28 PM PDT by Sub-Driver
World should brace for possible war over Iran: France Sep 16 02:44 PM US/Eastern The world should brace for a possible war over the Iranian nuclear crisis but seeking a solution through talks should take priority, French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said on Sunday.
"We have to prepare for the worst, and the worst is war," he said in an interview broadcast on French television and radio.
"We must negotiate right to the end," with Iran, he said, but underlined that if Tehran possessed an atomic weapon, it would represent "a real danger for the whole world."
"We are trying to put in place plans which are the privilege of chiefs of staff and that is not for tomorrow," he said, referring to military plans but stressed that although any attack on Iran was far from taking place, "It is normal for us to plan" for any eventuality.
Kouchner said France wanted the European Union to prepare sanctions against Iran, outside the ambit of the UN Security Council, to force Tehran to forsake its nuclear ambitions.
"We have decided that while negotiations are continuing ... to prepare eventual sanctions outside the ambit of UN sanctions. Our good friends, the Germans, suggested that," he said.
The foreign minister also said leading French companies such as Total and Gaz de France had been urged not to undertake new work or contracts in Iran.
Iran vehemently denies Western allegations it is seeking an atomic weapon, saying its nuclear drive is aimed at providing electricity for a growing population whose fossil fuels will one day run out.
The five permanent Security Council members -- Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States -- plus Germany are due to meet to discuss a new draft UN resolution on sanctions against Iran on September 21
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Never forget that the ayatollahs spent many decades in exile in France ~ some of them were definitely bought!
Thanks. I later added that the nuclear sites should be taken out during the first strikes. While that was a given, it needed to be said.
What do you think will happen the first time we hit one of their nuke plants and wipe it off the map?
Because we just did.
Caught them napping, too.
;-)
What France has to lose:
Business contracts
Upsetting its domestic terrorists
Making the US look good
Its reputation for cowardace
Its elitist attitude
Its reliance on the UN to pass meaningless resolutions
Thanks RF. Glad we agree on this one.
“The French have only a very limited naval capability.”
Not true man. They are a potential blue-water navy, and have substantial armaments in all ship classes. This is a list I got from Wiki. Czech it out;
Currently (2007) major ships in service are:
* 1 aircraft carrier (Charles de Gaulle),
* 1 helicopter cruiser (Jeanne d’Arc)
* 12 destroyers (officially classified as frigates)
* 11 frigates
* 9 corvettes (classified as “aviso”)
* 4 ballistic missile submarines
* 6 nuclear attack submarines
A navy such as that has the capacity to destroy countries. All that need be sent would be the CdeG and a couple of boomers. Please do easy research yourself as I dont want to have to correct people ad nauseum.
It took me to the end of your post to realize that you are serious. How sad.
Removing the SSBN's, France's navy isn't capable of forcing the Straits of Hormuz. To say that their navy is powerful because it has nukes is silly.
Its sole strike capability being a single aircraft carrier that is 1/4 the tonnage of a US CVN. Its airgroup is comprised of roughly 36 attack aircraft. Half of these are the new Rafale, but these Rafales are the F1 (air-air only). Fighter-attack F2's will not enter service until next year and won't be fully onboard for many years to come.
That leaves about 18 antique Super Etendards carrying a max load out of 4,600 lbs. to deliver France's wrath to Iran.
That's pitiful. Please don't pretend to be an expert about subjects you don't understand. It annoys us real experts.
Would you also put together the air plan for me. Once the carrier is in the Gulf you’ll need 24/7 coverage. You have 18 fighters and half again as many pilots. Plan on 2 being down for hard maintenance at any given time after the first week.
You’ll need a minimum of two overhead and two on the ready at all times (although that could be easily saturated). Your strike aircraft will also require a minimum of four per group (hoping you don’t run into any real opposition).
Even US CVN’s operate in groups to maintain 24/7 capabilities.
“That’s pitiful. Please don’t pretend to be an expert about subjects you don’t understand. It annoys us real experts.”
Didn’t know that Nukes and bloody great carriers were pitiful. I ‘spose the US is using space ships, powered by ion drives, and firing rail guns to take the fight to the enemy?
“Removing the SSBN’s, France’s navy isn’t capable of forcing the Straits of Hormuz. To say that their navy is powerful because it has nukes is silly.”
But thats the point isn’t it? We cant ‘remove’ the SSBN’s because they are there. What you’re saying is a hypothetical ‘if France didn’t have the SSBN’s’...
In your expert opinion , which navy is capable of performing such a task? Wait, let me hazard a random guess....The US Navy??????
Little wonder your allies are thin on the ground if you belittle one of the top 3 european navies. How about making some nice new mates in China? I hear their navy growing at a rate of knots (’scuse the pun, if you know what that means anyway...)
Why bother trailing round the world for allies in your wars if all you do is give them sh*t before, during, and after, their deployment? You boys just dont know how to make friends do you? Inferiority complex...
; )
Nukes are not a viable weapon, if they were we would have been out of Vietnam by 1966 and done with Iraq in 1991.
SSBN's give a navy no more power than having ICBM silos 12,000 miles away. They simply make it harder to take out the country's nukes on a first strike. Almost every country with SSBN's has debated taking them out of the naval command structure.
In your expert opinion , which navy is capable of performing such a task? Wait, let me hazard a random guess....The US Navy??????
Its the only one that is capable, by itself, of forcing the straits and carrying out an air order of battle running into the thousands of targets. The head of the Royal Navy and the head of the French Navy would readily agree.
Little wonder your allies are thin on the ground if you belittle one of the top 3 european navies.
That has everything to do with a lack of testicular fortitude on your side of the Atlantic. If we need to butt kiss people who haven't kept their militaries in working order and are now barely on par with some in the third world in order to have someone around to hold our coat while we do the fighting, I say kiss mine.
How about making some nice new mates in China? I hear their navy growing at a rate of knots (’scuse the pun, if you know what that means anyway...)
They at least appear to be taking it seriously. Neither the Royal Navy or the French navy could sail through the straits of Taiwan without their permission.
Why bother trailing round the world for allies in your wars if all you do is give them sh*t before, during, and after, their deployment? You boys just dont know how to make friends do you? Inferiority complex...
I've been stating the facts as they apply to the French navy's inability to fight a conventional war against Iran on their own. Facts that highlight your ignorance. We can live without allies. Can you live without a protector?
I've worked with a lot of Royal Navy men that were impressive war fighters. I assume they were no relation to you.
In any event I'm starting to think you are just a socialist troll, as your British act is more Monty Python than anything I've ever heard from my British friends.
The rail guns are going on our new destroyers. So yes.
European aircraft carriers are better than nothing, but all of them combined have less capability than one U.S. CVN.
You appear to be uncomfortable with acknowledging that European military power has fallen on hard times. Sorry, but we Americans aren't responsible for that.
apologies for any slurs from my side regarding individual and national character.
And yes, I do recall seeing some stuff about rail guns on the future us navy destroyers. mad stuff.
My argument has more to do with the tone of yours. Reading through your responses to me and your comments vis a vis Europe and its armed forces, I would suggest you dont have things in perspective.
The US is an economic powerhouse. Therefore as a single nation, it has more to spend on equipment for forces. If we combine the top three or four European nations and their militaries, the stats look more impressive.
Take note that the flood that hit New Orleans and Louisiana (my geography might be off...) would have covered the entire of the UK. Certainly, in the UK’s case, we have spent more than any other nation in the world on equipment (aside from the US and probably China). Don’t forget in 2014 the new Queen Elizabeth Class carriers will come into European navies; 2 for the UK, one for France.
I ‘spose as an aside I could say that no NATO nation would ever have to go to war without the backing of every member of the alliance. Aside from 1982 of course...
A good measure is percentage of GDP. Throughout the Cold-War a sore point for the United States was that we were spending far more of our GDP defending Western Europe, than the Western Europeans were willing to spend themselves as a percentage of their GDP. The 2006 percentages were:
USA 4.06%
France 2.6%
UK 2.4%
Australia 2.4%
Norway 1.9%
Italy 1.8%
Netherlands 1.6%
Denmark 1.5%
Germany 1.5%
Spain 1.2%
Canada 1.1%
Now its always great to have allies, the UK has been a wonderful ally, but it is not always helpful militarily. When countries like Norway or Denmark pony-up fifty people for medical support, the United States must provide all of the logistical support. We fly them and their equipment there, feed them, provide security, etc. It is not uncommon for the cost to us be higher than the cost to the contributing country.
Now I have no need to thump my chest by belittling other countries. My comments concerning France were straight forward. France does not have a conventional capability to deal with Iran on its own. The implication being that other countries would have to help. Either Arab countries in the region or the US Navy. Without Arab countries hosting, it will have to be primarily a US Navy show.
Now despite past problems with France, I would love to have them AND their carrier stacked up against Iran.
I ‘spose as an aside I could say that no NATO nation would ever have to go to war without the backing of every member of the alliance. Aside from 1982 of course...
1982 is an excellent example of how extraordinary a threat must be to invoke the charter. Had the charter been invoked, Argentina would have simply retreated without a fight. Instead, the UK found itself alone, except for the United States, which provided a logistical ladder down the Atlantic and topped off UK magazines from its own. And I might say, of all the NATO countries, we had the most to lose diplomatically.
Speaking of tone, being an American often feels like being the rich friend who is always expected to cover the bill. We don't mind paying more, but we appreciate reciprocity just like everyone else does, and at some point it just feels like we're being used.
I had a feeling that you might bring up the GDP data. While relevent, numbers can paint any picture you want them to.
“Now its always great to have allies, the UK has been a wonderful ally, but it is not always helpful militarily.”
Agreed. A couple of dozen personnel wont do much. That said, the inclusion of Denmark in your list of baddies in Europe doesn’t add up. They committed 500-600 for Iraq, and after withdrawing them, are now sending a similar number to Afghanistan, with no combat caveats.
“We fly them and their equipment there, feed them, provide security, etc. It is not uncommon for the cost to us be higher than the cost to the contributing country.”
This is still, a very valid point.
“Speaking of tone, being an American often feels like being the rich friend who is always expected to cover the bill. We don’t mind paying more, but we appreciate reciprocity just like everyone else does, and at some point it just feels like we’re being used.”
Sorry mate, but as the self-styled leader of the free world its your job. I dont think you have ‘been used’ in any of the recent conflicts, as they were your own decisions to act or not. I suppose what you wouldn’t want, would be to be in need of something, and thn get ripped off when its provided by allies. Lend-Lease and all that kind of stuff.
I had a feeling that you might bring up the GDP data. While relevent, numbers can paint any picture you want them to.
GDP numbers are pretty straight forward. Simply dismissing them isn't an argument. Do you have any reason at all to suggest that GDP is not a reliable method of measuring what a country has to draw from?
They committed 500-600 for Iraq, and after withdrawing them, are now sending a similar number to Afghanistan, with no combat caveats.
So I'm not sufficiently excited about 600 troops? Denmark maxed out at 430 troops in Iraq and its at 55 now. I'll try to be more appreciative of major European contributions. Although you would no doubt say its a lot for the 5.4 million population of Denmark, it is 25% the size of our forces in theater as a percentage of population. Yet the benefit to the people of Denmark of a stable democratic Arab world (the hopeful payoff) is 100% of what it is to Americans.
Sorry mate, but as the self-styled leader of the free world its your job. I dont think you have ‘been used’ in any of the recent conflicts, as they were your own decisions to act or not.
Have you ever seen the old American western movies? The good guy immediately recognizes who the bad guys are and what they will do given the chance. He wants to confront them before they act, but everyone else treats him as the troublemaker. Only after the woman is raped, the dog shot, and kid slapped, do they decide that something has to be done. Of course they themselves aren't up to the task.
When the majority of blood to be spilled is bound to be American, it is our prerogative to choose the time and place of the conflict to minimize our losses. Only in that sense are they conflicts of our choosing.
Had the UK and France confronted Hitler in the Rhineland, would they have been the aggressor? Would it have been a war of their choosing?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.