Why is France suddenly so Gung-ho

[thelonewolf266]

Is it just me or has France suddenly decided they're sick of people calling them cowards and that shooting up a few countries should stop that stereotype I'm not saying I think they shouldn't be helping, it just surprises me that they are essentially leading the charge in a lot of these situations.

Heres some links in case your not clued up with whats happening.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12795971

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/cotedivoire/8441674/Ivory-Coast-UN-and-French-helicopter-gunships-attack-Laurent-Gbagbo-residence.html

 

[Soviet Steve]

Well this is hardly new, if you'll recall the sole reason the US revolutionary war turned out in favor of the Americans was massive support from the French.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Well this is hardly new, if you'll recall the sole reason the US revolutionary war turned out in favor of the Americans was massive support from the French.

Basically this. They got their butts kicked in World War II, and they didn't support President Bush's illegal invasion of Iraq. The rest of their record as warriors? Pretty much spotless. France actually has a pretty violent history, once you get into it.

 

[Donbett1974]

Well this is hardly new, if you'll recall the sole reason the US revolutionary war turned out in favor of the Americans was massive support from the French.

Basically this. They got their butts kicked in World War II, and they didn't support President Bush's illegal invasion of Iraq. The rest of their record as warriors? Pretty much spotless. France actually has a pretty violent history, once you get into it.

Yea but at least Bush went to congress and has U.N. resolution 1441 to go to war Obama just calls it something other than war. That like a rapist saying I'm not a rapist I'm a unauthorized penetrator.

 

[Throwitawaynow]

Well this is hardly new, if you'll recall the sole reason the US revolutionary war turned out in favor of the Americans was massive support from the French.

Basically this. They got their butts kicked in World War II, and they didn't support President Bush's illegal invasion of Iraq. The rest of their record as warriors? Pretty much spotless. France actually has a pretty violent history, once you get into it.

Wrong! Look at this completely factual record of France as a military force http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/france.html. Even now, they're not doing the brunt of the work. They just screamed firsties and let everyone else do what was needed.

 

[ImmortalDrifter]

Wrong! Look at this completely factual record of France as a military force http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/france.html. Even now, they're not doing the brunt of the work. They just screamed firsties and let everyone else do what was needed.

Hit the nail on the head with this one.

OT: it's about oil needs. Frances need is rising so they're doing exactly what the U.S. did in Iraq.

 

[Throwitawaynow]

Hit the nail on the head with this one.

OT: it's about oil needs. Frances need is rising so they're doing exactly what the U.S. did in Iraq.

It's worse, the allies they called on put forth far more fire and manpower than france is offering.

 

[Irony's Acolyte]

Well this is hardly new, if you'll recall the sole reason the US revolutionary war turned out in favor of the Americans was massive support from the French.

Basically this. They got their butts kicked in World War II, and they didn't support President Bush's illegal invasion of Iraq. The rest of their record as warriors? Pretty much spotless. France actually has a pretty violent history, once you get into it.

Yea but at least Bush went to congress and has U.N. resolution 1441 to go to war Obama just calls it something other than war. That like a rapist saying I'm not a rapist I'm a unauthorized penetrator.

Fun fact, last "war" the US has been was WW2. Ever other one after is technically just armed conflict, police action, or something else because we've never declared war. So technically, Obama doesn't have to call it a war.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Well this is hardly new, if you'll recall the sole reason the US revolutionary war turned out in favor of the Americans was massive support from the French.

Basically this. They got their butts kicked in World War II, and they didn't support President Bush's illegal invasion of Iraq. The rest of their record as warriors? Pretty much spotless. France actually has a pretty violent history, once you get into it.

Yea but at least Bush went to congress and has U.N. resolution 1441 to go to war Obama just calls it something other than war. That like a rapist saying I'm not a rapist I'm a unauthorized penetrator.

Fun fact, last "war" the US has been was WW2. Ever other one after is technically just armed conflict, police action, or something else because we've never declared war. So technically, Obama doesn't have to call it a war.

To add to this, President Obama is well within his legal rights to do this without congressional approval, assuming all of the troops he committed are home at the end of 90 days (60 to wage war, and 30 to pull out.) He's actually doing better than either president Johnson or Nixon, both of whom flagrantly disregarded that particular law; Obama even filed the necessary paperwork with Congress (i.e., the stuff that says "we are doing this, here's your required notification" not a request for a formal declaration of war). Further, every president since the law has passed has personally considered the limitations imposed by that law unconstitutional, and had it as a part of their policies that they would ignore it if they had to, and let the Supreme Court decide on the matter after the dust settled. The fact that President Obama has gone out of his way to be compliant with those restrictions suggests that he's not really the bad guy here.

[sub]also, this is a NATO thing. President bush may have had U.N. support, but our hands were just as tied in regards to staying out of Libya as our allies were when it came to invading Iraq with us.[/sub]

 

[Midnight Crossroads]

This is nothing new. France has fought in multiple conflicts since the end of WW2. Especially in places such as the Côte d'Ivoire, a former French colony. It's just now the French are fighting with the US instead of doing their own thing. The conflict in Libya, for instance, isn't even the first war in which the French fought Gadafi. Don't let the joke thing fool you. There's a reason half our military terms are French and not German.

 

[Thaluikhain]

There's a reason half our military terms are French and not German.

Cause they sound sexier?

Seriosuly, though, yes, the cheese-eating surrender monkey thing[footnote]which apparently was only started in the 80s or so, due to political differences[/footnote] never was particularly funny, and it's getting rather stale now. Especially given that most people cite the French defeat in WW2[footnote]Against the Germans, the French were still beating the Italians, who were much better targets of mockery[/footnote][, when the other major powers had decided it was nice to have a large body of water between them and the Nazis (the USSR only had snow, though, so got invaded anyway).

 

[Kortney]

France arguably has the most impressive record of all current nations today. In World War 2 they didn't do much because World War 1 had just destroyed their country - but other than that they are a tremendous fighting force and have been "gung-ho" for hundreds of years.

This is nothing new.

 

[gellert1984]

While there was rioting and protests in one of the African countries (I forget which one specifically) the police were shooting citizens in the streets, opening up on crowds with automatic weapons. When the French foreign secretary was asked their opinion on the matter they said that we have to support the police. A fairly major gaff.

This is at least a part of the reason; trying to redeem themselves in the eyes of the voters.

 

[RicoGrey]

Everyone read the same article on cracked.com, but anyway, my 2 cents...

...It has been suggested to me that this is about selling military equipment, particularly aircraft. Supposedly the EU was designing a new fighter jet, and the french disagreed with the design of the jet, so they built their own out of spite. "Supposedly" the french were so sure that their new jet would sell well, its voice commands are all in English, to facilitate selling. Apparently, the jets are not selling well, and they are using this conflict as an excuse to show off the hardware to drum up sales.

Let me once again put "supposedly" in quotes. This was told to me by a co worker who has always been into military aircraft, he even was in the US Air Force for 10 years, but I did not ask for any references, so I consider it strictly rumor.

Chances are it is a multitude of reasons, as to why the French are so Gung Ho, probably involving financial, political, and humanitarian reasons.

 

[irani_che]

Anyone else see it as funny that the raphael jets that 6 months ago were being sold to gaddhafi are now being used on him?

 

[Randvek]

This isn't anything new and it shouldn't be surprising to anybody at all. France doesn't stay out of wars because they are pacifist or cowards or anything of the sort. They stay out of them because they don't see any benefit in them for France.

Libya and Ivory Coast are different than the other conflicts people have tried to drag France into. Libya is close to France, just across the Mediterranean. If you read the news, you'll also notice that Italy has been very much for action in Libya; they are close, too. It makes sense to be involved.

As for the Ivory Coast, they have only been an independent nation for around 50 years. Before that? You guessed it, French territory. They have a shared history and a shared language.

 

[Donbett1974]

To add to this, President Obama is well within his legal rights to do this without congressional approval, assuming all of the troops he committed are home at the end of 90 days (60 to wage war, and 30 to pull out.) He's actually doing better than either president Johnson or Nixon, both of whom flagrantly disregarded that particular law; Obama even filed the necessary paperwork with Congress (i.e., the stuff that says "we are doing this, here's your required notification" not a request for a formal declaration of war). Further, every president since the law has passed has personally considered the limitations imposed by that law unconstitutional, and had it as a part of their policies that they would ignore it if they had to, and let the Supreme Court decide on the matter after the dust settled. The fact that President Obama has gone out of his way to be compliant with those restrictions suggests that he's not really the bad guy here.

[sub]also, this is a NATO thing. President bush may have had U.N. support, but our hands were just as tied in regards to staying out of Libya as our allies were when it came to invading Iraq with us.[/sub]

President can only go to war for 90 days if
1. If there's a declaration of war.
2. If congress gives permission before hand as in if certain events happen.
3. If the U.S., territories, and/or possessions are attack.
None of these where met. And when high ranking members of your own party are talking about impeachment thats a real problem. Can't let Biden be president thou.

 

[thelonewolf266]

Anyone else see it as funny that the raphael jets that 6 months ago were being sold to gaddhafi are now being used on him?

Yes situations like that always amuse me just like when the CIA sold weapons to the Taliban so they could fight the Russians in Afghanistan and then end up having that equipment used against themselves.Its like nursery kids one second your lending someone a toy the next your hitting them over the head with said toy.