Syria Superthread [merged]

[rz350]

;D
Chirac would have sent an Airbus A380 full of white sheets.

Making fun people who bled and died along our own troops in the great war? 4,266,000 of them bled and 1,397,800 of them died fighting the same fight and the same enemy as our troops.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Making fun people who bled and died along our own troops in the great war? 4,266,000 of them bled and 1,397,800 of them died fighting the same fight and the same enemy as our troops.

Yes, they died.  They also mutinied in 1917 and put, essentially, the entire burden of attacking* the Germans on to the British (including Canadian) forces.  There would be fewer crosses in our war cemeteries had the French fought the whole war with us – it was, after all, their war in the first bloody place.

The problem is not the courage or integrity of the French people – they have both in exactly the same proportion as Afghans, Bulgarians, Canadians, Danes, etc, etc.  The problem is that France’s political culture – since about the 14th century – has been headed, almost consistently, in a ‘perverse’ direction.

For a variety of reasons – 500+ year old reasons, in many cases – France has adopted a highly centralized, statist political culture and it has, consistently, led the French to make serious strategic misjudgements.  I would argue that the last time the French got their strategy right was during the Hundred Years War!  While I celebrate Napoleon as a brilliant field commander and a pretty fair despot/emperor/civil administrator he was, in my not at all humble opinion a strategic nincompoop who failed, utterly, to understand his own (continental) or the British (maritime) strategies and why the latter could not help but overcome the former, as implemented.

In the 19th century the French made a tragic error and institutionalized the (Napoleonic) idea that there exists a self perpetuating elite which can be selected, educated and mentored so as to be able to manage the affairs of France and, by extension, the world.  I believe that the grandes écoles have seriously weakened French strategic decision making for more than 100 years – but, despite having their graduates at the centre of a depressing series of French strategic failures – including abject surrender – they are much admired.

French leadership reached and then maintained its nadir in the 20th century.  I see no signs that it will improve any time soon.  In fairness, British leadership, in the Edwardian era, was equally weak: signing the entente cordialewith France (1904) must go down as Britain’s greatest strategic blunder in over 500 years.

France is neither Canada’s friend nor even a trustworthy ally.  It is the only country since 1945 to attack Canada’s sovereignty directly.

----------
* The French did not abandon their trenches – they just refused to undertake offensive operations.

 

[rz350]

France is neither Canada’s friend nor even a trustworthy ally.  It is the only country since 1945 to attack Canada’s sovereignty directly.

I must of missed that Franco Canadian War that happened sometime in the last 60 years. I also missed the memo saying NATO members are no longer allies or friends.

 

[Roy Harding]

I must of missed that Franco Canadian War that happened sometime in the last 60 years. I also missed the memo saying NATO members are no longer allies or friends.

I'm guessing you weren't around in 1967.  I'm also guessing that you weren't taught in school about De Gaulle's famous little speech in Montreal.

In July 1967, de Gaulle visited Canada, celebrating the centennial of its existence as a nation with a World's Fair known officially as Expo '67. On July 24th, during a speech made from a balcony on Montreal city hall, to a large crowd gathered below De Gaulle uttered Vive le Québec then added, Vive le Québec libre ("Long Live Free Québec"). Harshly critized by English-speaking Canadians and the Canadian government for this unprecedented breach of diplomatic protocol, it was seen by many Canadians as an insult to the thousands of Canadian soldiers who twice fought and died for the freedom of France. De Gaulle's stance was nonetheless welcomed by a part of the Quebec population that favor that province's sovereignty. Outraged, the Government of Canada under Prime Minister Lester Pearson, a soldier who served in World War I and a Nobel Peace Prize winner, cancelled the remainder of De Gaulle's tour and he returned to France where he was also heavily criticised by a large part of the French media.

Complete text of the quoted article can be found here:

http://www.chemistrydaily.com/chemistry/Charles_de_Gaulle

One can be an ally without being a "friend".  Just ask the Germans and Russians pre-WWII.


Roy

Edit:  Typo.

 

[George Wallace]

I must of missed that Franco Canadian War that happened sometime in the last 60 years. I also missed the memo saying NATO members are no longer allies or friends.

How soon they forget! ....... or is it the rewriting of history to suit a political agenda?

I would hope that you remember the name Charles de Gaulle and his little speech in Montreal in 1967?  Perhaps you will also remember him kicking Canada and all other NATO countries out of their Bases in France in 1963?   He also removed France from most of the NATO alliance activities and treaties.......but who are we to hold that against him or his nation?

 

[hoist-monkey]

Making fun people who bled and died along our own troops in the great war? 4,266,000 of them bled and 1,397,800 of them died fighting the same fight and the same enemy as our troops.

I was not making fun of the "French People", I am of French descent on both sides of my family and very proud of it.
I have little respect for the French government and their policies.

The only time France will ever care about the rest of the world is when the Germans get restless and need to go on a vacation in Paris again, and then
we will see how fast we are allies again. I am also 1/4 German and more proud of that.

 

[rz350]

So they never ATTACKED our sovernity. French troops never landed and tried to wrest control of PQ, now did they?

The Americans seem to send subs into OUR waters, but no one talks about that. They are still friends and allies.

Didnt France send troops to A'stan? In fact, are some not there right now? (I remember they pulled regular forces out early this year, but they still have special forces there as far I know)

 

[a_majoor]

So they never ATTACKED our sovernity. French troops never landed and tried to wrest control of PQ, now did they?

The Americans seem to send subs into OUR waters, but no one talks about that. They are still friends and allies.

Didnt France send troops to A'stan? In fact, are some not there right now? (I remember they pulled regular forces out early this year, but they still have special forces there as far I know)

Attacking our sovernity by publicly suggesting that one of our provinces should no longer be part of Canada is different than disagreeing where the territorial boundaries are.

The French do have troops in Afghanistan, but this is because the French see this operation as supporting the French National Interest, in the same manner WE are in Afghanistan because it is in OUR national interest

 

[rz350]

So we're no better then the French then? Or does it seem taht do to both of us being countries of the West, our National intrests will line up somtimes, which is why we are friends, and allies.

 

[Roy Harding]

better[/i] then the French then? Or does it seem taht do to both of us being countries of the West, our National intrests will line up somtimes, which is why we are friends, and allies.

(Emphasis added)

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition.  2000.

better1

SYLLABICATION: bet·ter

PRONUNCIATION:   btr

ADJECTIVE: Comparative of good1. Greater in excellence or higher in quality. 2. More useful, suitable, or desirable: found a better way to go; a suit with a better fit than that one. 3. More highly skilled or adept: I am better at math than English. 4. Greater or larger: argued for the better part of an hour. 5. More advantageous or favorable; improved: a better chance of success. 6. Healthier or more fit than before: The patient is better today.

ADVERB: Comparative of well21. In a more excellent way. 2a. To a greater extent or degree: better suited to the job; likes it better without sauce. b. To greater advantage; preferably: a deed better left undone. See Usage Notes at best, have, rather. 3. More: It took me better than a year to recover.

NOUN: 1. One that is greater in excellence or higher in quality. 2. A superior, as in standing, competence, or intelligence. Usually used in the plural: to learn from one's betters.

VERB: Inflected forms: bet·tered, bet·ter·ing, bet·ters

TRANSITIVE VERB: 1. To make better; improve: trying to better conditions in the prison; bettered myself by changing jobs. See synonyms at improve. 2. To surpass or exceed.

INTRANSITIVE VERB: To become better.

IDIOMS: better off In a better or more prosperous condition: would be better off taking the train instead of driving; felt better off after the rise in stock prices. for the better Resulting in or aiming at an improvement: Her condition took a turn for the better. get (or have) the better of To outdo or outwit; defeat. think better of To change one's mind about (a course of action) after reconsideration: I almost bought an expensive watch, but then I thought better of it.

ETYMOLOGY: Middle English, from Old English betera. See bhad- in Appendix I.

"Better" used by itself is usually interpreted as a "moral" term.  "Morals" have little place in international relations - nations have interests - read Jack Granatstein on the subject (Who' War Is It Anyway? - I don't have the book handy, so I can't make a proper reference - let me know if you need the rest of the citation), and NO place in an objective debate or discussion.  When used as a qualifier, "better" makes reference to specific quality (see definition above).

So I throw your question back at you - in which specific actions or qualities do you think France is "better"?

Roy

 

[TCBF]

"The only time France will ever care about the rest of the world is when the Germans get restless and need to go on a vacation in Paris again ..."

- Rather unfair.  Some of their best breeding stock was killed off 1870-1945.  The current civil war brewing in the suburbs will soon separate the wheat from the chaff, however.

 

[rz350]

So I throw your question back at you - in which specific actions or qualities do you think France is "better"?
Roy

None, I do not think they are better then us. I however, also, do not think they are enemies or in the ranks of the Taliban, they are a good, proper Western Nation. (proper as in they are properly, and truly part of political "west" ) Thus they are our friends (since the west needs to stick together to stave of the Middle Eastern extremists) and our allies, via being part of NATO.

 

[Donut]

RZ350, since you don't seem to get it that France is no longer part of the military aspects of NATO...

From the French Foreign Affairs website
http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/en/france_159/discovering-france_2005/france-from-to-z_1978/defence_1983/france-and-nato_1435.html

"France is one of the founding members of the Atlantic Alliance created by the 1949 Washington Treaty. Since leaving the integrated NATO structure in 1966, France has continued to participate fully in the activities of the political bodies." (emphasis mine)

Further, while France still deploys troops in support of NATO ops, they do so as part of their larger objective (A European Defence Identity, or  "Lets keep the Americans, who kept the Soviets from marching along the Champs Elysee to the Bay of Biscay, out of our back yards") which is expanded upon in the same page, and further elaborated on on this page:

http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/en/france_159/discovering-france_2005/france-from-to-z_1978/defence_1983/france-and-european-defence_1434.html

I'll agree that France is a proper "Western" nation, they now display most, if not all, of the attributes that are leading to the decay of the "Western" world.  We may share interests, but we are most emphatically not friends (even if you believe that nations have friends).  Friends come over to my house and drink my beer.  The French, not so much.

DF

 

[rz350]

I'll agree that France is a proper "Western" nation, they now display most, if not all, of the attributes that are leading to the decay of the "Western" world.  We may share interests, but we are most emphatically not friends (even if you believe that nations have friends).  Friends come over to my house and drink my beer.  The French, not so much.

DF

That is the least objective thing I have ever heard, ever. The Western world is not decaying. its advancing. It gets freer, richer and more powerful ever year, not the other way around. Then again, what I said was not objective or fact based either, but I recon if you wont give me facts to back your argument, I wont either.

 

[Donut]

Sure.  Race riots, ghettoization, anti-semitism, 15,000 dead old people whose families won't even come back from the beach to claim the bodies....all signs of progress in your world I guess.  :boring:

 

[rz350]

Sure.   Race riots, ghettoization, anti-semitism, 15,000 dead old people whose families won't even come back from the beach to claim the bodies....all signs of progress in your world I guess.   :boring:

There was even more anti Semites , oh, I recon, about 70-60 years ago. A lot more. In fact, if I remember, about 6 million dead Jews as result.

Race Riots? I think the good ol USA has had more of them in recent time then France.

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

Race Riots? I think the good ol USA has had more of them in recent time then France.

!!! Don't follow the news much, eh?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4405620.stm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_civil_unrest_in_France

 

[geo]

Hmmm
Whac could I say about France & Canada
1763  France sold "new France" down the river
1778  France enters the war on the US side.  In part to satisfy it's taste for revenge (though it ruined the treasury)... bringing on the French revolution
1967  Charles DeGaule flaps his gums about "vive le Québec Libre" & skips town before he got his ass kicked outa town
2006  Ségolène Royale - a potential candidate for the Presidency - flaps her gums about "la liberté et souveraineté du Québec" (Québec Libre).....

Thank you very much, don't need your help we're doing fine without ya!
Don't let the door hit ya in the A$$ as you go out the door....

 

[tomahawk6]

There is no question that Israel struck at a target in northern Syria.A fuel tank was found just across the border in Turkey.One interesting tidbit was that the Israeli planes were able to neutralize the Pantsyr-S1 air defense system.Valuable intel if the US must strike at Iran.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3448829,00.html

Report: Israel spots nuclear installations in Syria


Washington official says Israeli surveillance shows possible Syrian nuclear installation stocked by North Korea, Israeli Arab newspaper claims target of alleged raid last week was Syrian missile base financed by Iran

Israel believes that North Korea has been supplying Syria and Iran with nuclear materials, a Washington defense official told the New York Times. “The Israelis think North Korea is selling to Iran and Syria what little they have left,” he said.

The official added that recent Israeli reconnaissance flights over Syria revealed possible nuclear installations that Israeli officials estimate might have been supplied with material from North Korea.



Meanwhile on Wednesday the Nazareth-based Israeli Arab newspaper The Assennara cited anonymous Israeli sources as saying that Israeli jets "bombed a Syrian-Iranian missile base in northern Syria that was financed by Iran... It appears that the base was completely destroyed."

According to the Times, American officials confirmed Tuesday that Israeli jets launched an airstrike inside Syria. Sources said that Israel struck at least one target in northeastern Syria, but could not provide more details.


The most likely target was, according to some administration officials, weapon caches sent by Iran to Hizbullah through Syria.

North Korea commented on the incident Tuesday, calling it a "dangerous provocation", Chinese News Agency Xinhua reported on Tuesday.

"This is a very dangerous provocation little short of wantonly violating the sovereignty of Syria and seriously harassing the regional peace and security," a North Korean Foreign Ministry spokesman said.

"The Democratic People's Republic of Korea strongly denounces the above-said intrusion and extends full support and solidarity to the Syrian people in their just cause to defend the national security and the regional peace."

 

[tomahawk6]

The Israelis and Syrians are being very secretive about this operation. I suspect the Syrians were caught with their hand in the cookie jar.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article2461421.ece

Israelis ‘blew apart Syrian nuclear cache’

IT was just after midnight when the 69th Squadron of Israeli F15Is crossed the Syrian coast-line. On the ground, Syria’s formidable air defences went dead. An audacious raid on a Syrian target 50 miles from the Iraqi border was under way.

At a rendezvous point on the ground, a Shaldag air force commando team was waiting to direct their laser beams at the target for the approaching jets. The team had arrived a day earlier, taking up position near a large underground depot. Soon the bunkers were in flames.

Ten days after the jets reached home, their mission was the focus of intense speculation this weekend amid claims that Israel believed it had destroyed a cache of nuclear materials from North Korea.

The Israeli government was not saying. “The security sources and IDF [Israeli Defence Forces] soldiers are demonstrating unusual courage,” said Ehud Olmert, the prime minister. “We naturally cannot always show the public our cards.”

The Syrians were also keeping mum. “I cannot reveal the details,” said Farouk al-Sharaa, the vice-president. “All I can say is the military and political echelon is looking into a series of responses as we speak. Results are forthcoming.” The official story that the target comprised weapons destined for Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed Lebanese Shi’ite group, appeared to be crumbling in the face of widespread scepticism.

Andrew Semmel, a senior US State Department official, said Syria might have obtained nuclear equipment from “secret suppliers”, and added that there were a “number of foreign technicians” in the country.

Asked if they could be North Korean, he replied: “There are North Korean people there. There’s no question about that.” He said a network run by AQ Khan, the disgraced creator of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons, could be involved.

But why would nuclear material be in Syria? Known to have chemical weapons, was it seeking to bolster its arsenal with something even more deadly?

Alternatively, could it be hiding equipment for North Korea, enabling Kim Jong-il to pretend to be giving up his nuclear programme in exchange for economic aid? Or was the material bound for Iran, as some authorities in America suggest?

According to Israeli sources, preparations for the attack had been going on since late spring, when Meir Dagan, the head of Mossad, presented Olmert with evidence that Syria was seeking to buy a nuclear device from North Korea.

The Israeli spy chief apparently feared such a device could eventually be installed on North-Korean-made Scud-C missiles.

“This was supposed to be a devastating Syrian surprise for Israel,” said an Israeli source. “We’ve known for a long time that Syria has deadly chemical warheads on its Scuds, but Israel can’t live with a nuclear warhead.”

An expert on the Middle East, who has spoken to Israeli participants in the raid, told yesterday’s Washington Post that the timing of the raid on September 6 appeared to be linked to the arrival three days earlier of a ship carrying North Korean material labelled as cement but suspected of concealing nuclear equipment.

The target was identified as a northern Syrian facility that purported to be an agricultural research centre on the Euphrates river. Israel had been monitoring it for some time, concerned that it was being used to extract uranium from phosphates.

According to an Israeli air force source, the Israeli satellite Ofek 7, launched in June, was diverted from Iran to Syria. It sent out high-quality images of a northeastern area every 90 minutes, making it easy for air force specialists to spot the facility.

Early in the summer Ehud Barak, the defence minister, had given the order to double Israeli forces on its Golan Heights border with Syria in anticipation of possible retaliation by Damascus in the event of air strikes.

Sergei Kirpichenko, the Russian ambassador to Syria, warned President Bashar al-Assad last month that Israel was planning an attack, but suggested the target was the Golan Heights.

Israeli military intelligence sources claim Syrian special forces moved towards the Israeli outpost of Mount Hermon on the Golan Heights. Tension rose, but nobody knew why.

At this point, Barak feared events could spiral out of control. The decision was taken to reduce the number of Israeli troops on the Golan Heights and tell Damascus the tension was over. Syria relaxed its guard shortly before the Israeli Defence Forces struck.

Only three Israeli cabinet ministers are said to have been in the know � Olmert, Barak and Tzipi Livni, the foreign minister. America was also consulted. According to Israeli sources, American air force codes were given to the Israeli air force attaché in Washington to ensure Israel’s F15Is would not mistakenly attack their US counterparts.

Once the mission was under way, Israel imposed draconian military censorship and no news of the operation emerged until Syria complained that Israeli aircraft had violated its airspace. Syria claimed its air defences had engaged the planes, forcing them to drop fuel tanks to lighten their loads as they fled.

But intelligence sources suggested it was a highly successful Israeli raid on nuclear material supplied by North Korea.

Washington was rife with speculation last week about the precise nature of the operation. One source said the air strikes were a diversion for a daring Israeli commando raid, in which nuclear materials were intercepted en route to Iran and hauled to Israel. Others claimed they were destroyed in the attack.

There is no doubt, however, that North Korea is accused of nuclear cooperation with Syria, helped by AQ Khan’s network. John Bolton, who was undersecretary for arms control at the State Department, told the United Nations in 2004 the Pakistani nuclear scientist had “several other” customers besides Iran, Libya and North Korea.

Some of his evidence came from the CIA, which had reported to Congress that it viewed “Syrian nuclear intentions with growing concern”.

“I’ve been worried for some time about North Korea and Iran outsourcing their nuclear programmes,” Bolton said last week. Syria, he added, was a member of a “junior axis of evil”, with a well-established ambition to develop weapons of mass destruction.

The links between Syria and North Korea date back to the rule of Kim Il-sung and President Hafez al-Assad in the last century. In recent months, their sons have quietly ordered an increase in military and technical cooperation.

Foreign diplomats who follow North Korean affairs are taking note. There were reports of Syrian passengers on flights from Beijing to Pyongyang and sightings of Middle Eastern businessmen from sources who watch the trains from North Korea to China.

On August 14, Rim Kyong Man, the North Korean foreign trade minister, was in Syria to sign a protocol on “cooperation in trade and science and technology”. No details were released, but it caught Israel’s attention.

Syria possesses between 60 and 120 Scud-C missiles, which it has bought from North Korea over the past 15 years. Diplomats believe North Korean engineers have been working on extending their 300-mile range. It means they can be used in the deserts of northeastern Syria � the area of the Israeli strike.

The triangular relationship between North Korea, Syria and Iran continues to perplex intelligence analysts. Syria served as a conduit for the transport to Iran of an estimated £50m of missile components and technology sent by sea from North Korea. The same route may be in use for nuclear equipment.

But North Korea is at a sensitive stage of negotiations to end its nuclear programme in exchange for security guarantees and aid, leading some diplomats to cast doubt on the likelihood that Kim would cross America’s “red line” forbidding the proliferation of nuclear materials.

Christopher Hill, the State Department official representing America in the talks, said on Friday he could not confirm “intelligence-type things”, but the reports underscored the need “to make sure the North Koreans get out of the nuclear business”.

By its actions, Israel showed it is not interested in waiting for diplomacy to work where nuclear weapons are at stake.

As a bonus, the Israelis proved they could penetrate the Syrian air defence system, which is stronger than the one protecting Iranian nuclear sites.

This weekend President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran sent Ali Akbar Mehrabian, his nephew, to Syria to assess the damage. The new “axis of evil” may have lost one of its spokes.