Political Crossfire Forums

[MoscowMatt]

Apparently an international peacekeeping force is not being deployed as France want a ceasefire before they go in. In otherwords they don't want to have to get their hands dirty and maybe shock horror actually have to do some fighting. Britain on the other hand want the peacekeepers deployed ASAP.

from BBC news online

France, likely to lead the force, and to be the largest troop contributor, will not go into Lebanon if there is a risk of having to fight its way in. France insisted on a durable ceasefire and a comprehensive political settlement first.

The United States, which will not send troops, would like the force to go in earlier, to ensure a durable ceasefire.


Yet everybody seems to think the wait for the ceasefire is all America's doing!!!! Never let the facts get in the way of some anti-americansim eh?!!!

[DSwain]

MoscowMatt wrote: Apparently an international peacekeeping force is not being deployed as France want a ceasefire before they go in. In otherwords they don't want to have to get their hands dirty and maybe shock horror actually have to do some fighting. Britain on the other hand want the peacekeepers deployed ASAP.

from BBC news online

France, likely to lead the force, and to be the largest troop contributor, will not go into Lebanon if there is a risk of having to fight its way in. France insisted on a durable ceasefire and a comprehensive political settlement first.

The United States, which will not send troops, would like the force to go in earlier, to ensure a durable ceasefire.


Yet everybody seems to think the wait for the ceasefire is all America's doing!!!! Never let the facts get in the way of some anti-americansim eh?!!!

I can't agree with you here, MM. The French are right and the US/UK/Israel is wrong. There must be a durable ceasefire before any international force goes in. However, once the force is in place it should respond with vigour and aggression against any transgression of that ceasefire. I also think the French, as a troop-contributing nation, have the right to argue for the situation into which it is going to commit its forces while the US/UK really do not as we are not sending troops.

[MoscowMatt]

DSwain wrote: MoscowMatt wrote: Apparently an international peacekeeping force is not being deployed as France want a ceasefire before they go in. In otherwords they don't want to have to get their hands dirty and maybe shock horror actually have to do some fighting. Britain on the other hand want the peacekeepers deployed ASAP.

from BBC news online

France, likely to lead the force, and to be the largest troop contributor, will not go into Lebanon if there is a risk of having to fight its way in. France insisted on a durable ceasefire and a comprehensive political settlement first.

The United States, which will not send troops, would like the force to go in earlier, to ensure a durable ceasefire.


Yet everybody seems to think the wait for the ceasefire is all America's doing!!!! Never let the facts get in the way of some anti-americansim eh?!!!

I can't agree with you here, MM. The French are right and the US/UK/Israel is wrong. There must be a durable ceasefire before any international force goes in. However, once the force is in place it should respond with vigour and aggression against any transgression of that ceasefire. I also think the French, as a troop-contributing nation, have the right to argue for the situation into which it is going to commit its forces while the US/UK really do not as we are not sending troops.

But with a comprehensive political settlement as France wants would there actually be any need then for a peacekeeping force? I can see where you are coming from but send the troops in now and the fighting will be stopped. Afterall even Israel would think twice about bombing an area if there are French troops on the ground.

Picking up on something else you said about responding against transgression. So if trouble flares up again between Hezbollah and Israel then who would the peacekeepers target? Could there really be the potential for the French or whoever to end up fighting the Israelis? And what about the political fallout from such a scenario?

[DSwain]

MoscowMatt wrote: DSwain wrote: MoscowMatt wrote: Apparently an international peacekeeping force is not being deployed as France want a ceasefire before they go in. In otherwords they don't want to have to get their hands dirty and maybe shock horror actually have to do some fighting. Britain on the other hand want the peacekeepers deployed ASAP.

from BBC news online

France, likely to lead the force, and to be the largest troop contributor, will not go into Lebanon if there is a risk of having to fight its way in. France insisted on a durable ceasefire and a comprehensive political settlement first.

The United States, which will not send troops, would like the force to go in earlier, to ensure a durable ceasefire.


Yet everybody seems to think the wait for the ceasefire is all America's doing!!!! Never let the facts get in the way of some anti-americansim eh?!!!

I can't agree with you here, MM. The French are right and the US/UK/Israel is wrong. There must be a durable ceasefire before any international force goes in. However, once the force is in place it should respond with vigour and aggression against any transgression of that ceasefire. I also think the French, as a troop-contributing nation, have the right to argue for the situation into which it is going to commit its forces while the US/UK really do not as we are not sending troops.

But with a comprehensive political settlement as France wants would there actually be any need then for a peacekeeping force? I can see where you are coming from but send the troops in now and the fighting will be stopped. Afterall even Israel would think twice about bombing an area if there are French troops on the ground.

Picking up on something else you said about responding against transgression. So if trouble flares up again between Hezbollah and Israel then who would the peacekeepers target? Could there really be the potential for the French or whoever to end up fighting the Israelis? And what about the political fallout from such a scenario?

I think there needs to be agreement on the framework for a comprehensive political settlement before an international force makes an intervention. IMO the settlement itself does not need to be in place before troops go in - just an agreement on how it will be implemented once the troops are in place.

Any international force in southern Lebanon should have rules of engagement that allow it to combat ANY transgression of Lebanese or Israeli sovereignty. It is essential that any international force is not viewed as a proxy Israeli force. However so long as such an international force does its job, there would be no need for the Israelis to take any further military action.

[antonio62]

1. With no peace how can peacekeepers keep peace?
2. The French lead almost all UN missions and are always fighting wars unlike Britain who almost always shirks away from doing much of anything to help out.

[MoscowMatt]

antonio62 wrote: 1. With no peace how can peacekeepers keep peace?
2. The French lead almost all UN missions and are always fighting wars unlike Britain who almost always shirks away from doing much of anything to help out.

Yeah I mean it's the French fighting in two of the most dangerous places on earth namely Iraq and Afghanistan isn't it!! :roll:

Every week it's French soldiers coffins we see and not Brit's isn't it?!! :roll:

Yeah we really don't help out!! :evil:

[DSwain]

antonio62 wrote: 1. With no peace how can peacekeepers keep peace?
2. The French lead almost all UN missions and are always fighting wars unlike Britain who almost always shirks away from doing much of anything to help out.

What alternate reality is it in which your no2 point is anything other than a big joke?

1) France has intervened extensively in its former African colonies, that is true, but Britain has also - remember Sierra Leone?
2) The UK's contribution to the Afghanistan mission has been more substantial than that of France.
3) More UK forces were deployed in UNPROFOR than French forces
4) More UK forces were deployed in preparation for a possible invasion of Kosovo.
4) More UK forces deployed in Gulf I than French forces.

Don't forget, that France's army is larger than Britain's.

I don't hold with the ignorant view of France's armed forces, that they're worthless, but it seems your post is designed to elicit that sort of response.

Can you post links to your sources on your extraordinary post? Or is this just a spot of trolling, Antonio62?

[Nico]

MoscowMatt wrote:
Yeah I mean it's the French fighting in two of the most dangerous places on earth namely Iraq and Afghanistan isn't it!! :roll:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._invasion_of_Afghanistan

[MoscowMatt]

Nico wrote: MoscowMatt wrote:
Yeah I mean it's the French fighting in two of the most dangerous places on earth namely Iraq and Afghanistan isn't it!! :roll:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._invasion_of_Afghanistan

Fair enough, but in what capacity, are we talking front line combatants or logistical organisers?

Also in what numbers?

[DSwain]

MoscowMatt wrote: Nico wrote: MoscowMatt wrote:
Yeah I mean it's the French fighting in two of the most dangerous places on earth namely Iraq and Afghanistan isn't it!! :roll:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._invasion_of_Afghanistan

Fair enough, but in what capacity, are we talking front line combatants or logistical organisers?

Also in what numbers?

There are currently 1,500 French service personnel - including combat troops - in Afghanistan, while the UK has 4,500 and is envisaging nearly 6,000 over the coming months. None of this is meant to demean or belittle what France is doing - rather to repudiate Antonio's post.

[antonio62]

DSwain wrote: 1) France has intervened extensively in its former African colonies, that is true, but Britain has also - remember Sierra Leone?

I beleive France actually had troops in Seirra Leone I don't have time to check though. Regardless one mission well done us how many have the French done since 2000?

Quote: 2) The UK's contribution to the Afghanistan mission has been more substantial than that of France.

In the initial invasion France sent more troops. Now Britains contribution is larger. They might as well not be there however as there aren't nearly the troops (from all nations combined) in Afganistan to do the job there isn't much point doing a job half done.

Quote: 3) More UK forces were deployed in UNPROFOR than French forces

As this was before either of the respective current governments were in power it isn;'t really that relevent.

Quote: 4) More UK forces were deployed in preparation for a possible invasion of Kosovo.



Quote: 4) More UK forces deployed in Gulf I than French forces.

What invading a country to help in a currency war and destroying a previously stable (although deplorable) government turning the country into something that soon may turn into civil war? We did really good there/

Quote: Don't forget, that France's army is larger than Britain's.

100,000 of Frances military manpower aren't soldiers they are more police that are only to be used within France so France has a smaller army than Britain.

Quote: I don't hold with the ignorant view of France's armed forces, that they're worthless, but it seems your post is designed to elicit that sort of response.

Can you post links to your sources on your extraordinary post? Or is this just a spot of trolling, Antonio62?

Just pointing out to the 'chease eating surrender monkey' crowd that France participates far more in UN operations than almost any country.

[Gitana]

Quote: I think there needs to be agreement on the framework for a comprehensive political settlement before an international force makes an intervention. IMO the settlement itself does not need to be in place before troops go in - just an agreement on how it will be implemented once the troops are in place.

Any international force in southern Lebanon should have rules of engagement that allow it to combat ANY transgression of Lebanese or Israeli sovereignty. It is essential that any international force is not viewed as a proxy Israeli force. However so long as such an international force does its job, there would be no need for the Israelis to take any further military action.

Agreed. I think that's a common-sense proposal.

The comment about our UK brethren was unnecessary and insulting, especially given their loss of life in Iraq alone; AND that they have stood by the US in it's ill-conceived Iraq invasion.

Quote: Regardless one mission well done us how many have the French done since 2000?

How many successful missions has the US done since 2000?

[antonio62]

Gitana wrote: How many successful missions has the US done since 2000?

Depends how you define success? The US has only been involved in two confilcts since 2000 Iraq and Afganistan. France on the other hand the Ivory Coast, Haiti, Liberia, Afganistan, Chad and the list goes on.

[DSwain]

Antonio - you still haven't posted anything to support your claim that:

"2. The French lead almost all UN missions and are always fighting wars unlike Britain who almost always shirks away from doing much of anything to help out"

Which wars have the British shirked? I don't understand why you've made this post other than to provoke the people who call the French 'cheese eating surrender monkeys' to emerge from under their rocks.

[antonio62]

DSwain wrote: Antonio - you still haven't posted anything to support your claim that:

"2. The French lead almost all UN missions and are always fighting wars unlike Britain who almost always shirks away from doing much of anything to help out"

Which wars have the British shirked? I don't understand why you've made this post other than to provoke the people who call the French 'cheese eating surrender monkeys' to emerge from under their rocks.

France is always involved in UN missions. Almost all Un pecae keeping missions involve French troops this cant be said about Britain which is my point.

[DSwain]

antonio62 wrote: DSwain wrote: Antonio - you still haven't posted anything to support your claim that:

"2. The French lead almost all UN missions and are always fighting wars unlike Britain who almost always shirks away from doing much of anything to help out"

Which wars have the British shirked? I don't understand why you've made this post other than to provoke the people who call the French 'cheese eating surrender monkeys' to emerge from under their rocks.

France is always involved in UN missions. Almost all Un pecae keeping missions involve French troops this cant be said about Britain which is my point.

UK forces are currently involved in:
NATO ops in Afghanistan
UNMIK and NATO ops Kosovo,
EUFOR ops in Bosnia
UN ops in Sierra Leone, Cyprus, Liberia, Ethiopia and Georgia

Not to mention Operation Telic in Iraq

French forces can boast a similar long list of deployments; I wouldn't accuse France of shirking its commitments and I don't see why you should want to accuse Britain of such a thing.

BTW - Gulf I was action authorised by the United Nations and it's a fact that the UK deployed 2 1/2 times the forces that France sent, just for the record.

[Gitana]

Quote: Depends how you define success?

No matter how it's defined, the US hasn't been successful in anything but Iraqi oil profits. We can't even secure one city (Baghdad) after all this time.

[Rankor and Pissing]

Gitana wrote: Quote: Depends how you define success?

No matter how it's defined, the US hasn't been successful in anything but Iraqi oil profits. We can't even secure one city (Baghdad) after all this time.

Whew, what a load of rhetoric in two sentences.

Can you show me the linkage in Iraq oil profits please?
Also, there are 18 provinces in Iraq... most of which see little or no violence. Secure one city? Most are secured. Perhaps you aren't informed?

Link

[Nico]

French troops are a capable bunch, trust me, but they are deployed in the national interest. At the moment i have friends in the Legion deployed in cote d'ivoire, as this just follows french policy. The average French soldier can be from any political leaning, race, and of the same abilities cross-sectionally as troops from any other nation. French bullets kill one just as dead as any other type. If there has been a fundamental flaw with the french military machine, it has always been in the use/ deployment of them, rather than their abilities as individuals. They like to be underestimated also, and that's when you've lost.


as for waiting for a ceasefire first, it's straight foward logic. With a ceasefire in place, French or other troops don't have to contend with misconceptions of the locals or Israelis as to the state of the conflict. send them in early and you put them in the position of being meat in a sandwich, with either side potentially accusing them of biased behavior.
There is no loss to a straight ceasefire followed by international force coming in directly. if israel continued operations, or hezbollah for that matter, after they were deployed, then the excuses would fly for continued destruction and the whole effort would be wasted.

[Ellron]

MoscowMatt wrote: Apparently an international peacekeeping force is not being deployed as France want a ceasefire before they go in. In otherwords they don't want to have to get their hands dirty and maybe shock horror actually have to do some fighting. Britain on the other hand want the peacekeepers deployed ASAP.

from BBC news online

France, likely to lead the force, and to be the largest troop contributor, will not go into Lebanon if there is a risk of having to fight its way in. France insisted on a durable ceasefire and a comprehensive political settlement first.

The United States, which will not send troops, would like the force to go in earlier, to ensure a durable ceasefire.


Yet everybody seems to think the wait for the ceasefire is all America's doing!!!! Never let the facts get in the way of some anti-americansim eh?!!!

Good move by the French.

THeres a reason why its called a peacekeeping force. There not just gonna go in there and kick some ass and say "now stop fighting you BAD countries". Its called diplomacy and makes for a clean entrance and exit.

Also the idea that the French dont use military force is ridicilious.

Ever hear of the French Foreign Legion? Probably have at least 5 operations going on today.