French carrier battle group heads for Gulf. - Page 2

Spiffor · February 16, 2003, 01:33

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
Our cowboy sensibilities don't work that way....

Sure, but we civilized Europeans do not despair to educate you one day

DuncanK · February 16, 2003, 01:33

I don't think Chirac truly know about Texans.

Spiffor · February 16, 2003, 01:35

Quote:

Originally posted by DuncanK
I don't think Chirac truly know about Texans.

Don't worry, he's quite a redneck too

Ted Striker · February 16, 2003, 01:35

"No, no, you da man."

Ted Striker · February 16, 2003, 01:37

Yeah, I think the Pope has an influence over Saddam.

Velociryx · February 16, 2003, 01:39

Ahhh, the exact phrase escapes me, but when Ben Franklin visited your country, wasn't he referred to as something along the lines of a "delightful barbarian?"

That's pretty much how we remain....just a bunch of rowdies and roughnecks...

-=Vel=-

Spiffor · February 16, 2003, 01:39

Is that the Pope ? It looks like some archbishop visiting Saddam in one of his palaces...

Spiffor · February 16, 2003, 01:40

Nah Vel, you're no Barbarians anymore, you're decadent

You didn't read 'Poly's quotes closely enough !

Ted Striker · February 16, 2003, 01:41

Yeah that's one of the Pope's Lackeys there, carrying a letter from the Pope.

Velociryx · February 16, 2003, 01:42

Hmmm.....how 'bout *decadent* barbarians, then?

-=Vel=-

Spiffor · February 16, 2003, 01:44

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
Hmmm.....how 'bout *decadent* barbarians, then?

You Yanks are even more terrible than I thought

Velociryx · February 16, 2003, 01:44

-=Vel=-

PLATO · February 16, 2003, 01:52

Quote:

You Yanks are even more terrible than I thought

Always nice to get a compliment when we can!

Spiffor · February 16, 2003, 01:56

NP Plato. It's my nature, as a Cheese-eating surrendering monkey, to compliment you like so every time I can

Jon Shafer · February 16, 2003, 02:02

Another vote for 'they're lost' here.

Oerdin · February 16, 2003, 02:05

What sort of planes do the French have on their Carrier? I'm interested in seeing how many of each type it carries and what sort of weapons they're packing.

Velociryx · February 16, 2003, 02:07

IIRC, they've got some of those new NERF missiles for whatever planes are on it....given the string of bad luck that particular ship has had, I reckon those were the only sort the crew felt comfortable handling?

-=Vel=-

Ted Striker · February 16, 2003, 02:09

What they got that NERF hoop with the picture of Dr J. on it?

Velociryx · February 16, 2003, 02:11

Yep....that's what caused the latest delay out of port....had to get it installed....

-=Vel=-

Spiffor · February 16, 2003, 02:16

According to this site, the Charles de Gaulle carries 40 planes, including Super-Etendard (20 years-old fighters), Rafale (ultra modern fighter bomber) and E2C Hawkeye (scouting).
It is also compatible with most NATO planes IIRC. The only incompatibility was about a British plane in development (dunno if it is now in service)

Lancer · February 16, 2003, 02:19

Well, I can't find it now. However there's one that says the French carrier will be training in the eastern med w/ the Harry S Truman, a US carrier.

Link in a sec

DuncanK · February 16, 2003, 02:21

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
If the US couldn't get the 9 votes in the Security Council it needs for war, France has no need to use its veto power. It is less and less likely that the US will get a UN go-ahead now.

There could be a compromise. The inspections could be stepped up for a couple of weeks. If the French sign on the rest might follow.

Lancer · February 16, 2003, 02:22

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0210-03.htm

Spiffor · February 16, 2003, 02:22

IIRC, the Harry S Truman is the most recent carrier in the US. Both of us together must show very big feats of technology I think.

And that's enough spamming for today. I'm going to bed

DuncanK · February 16, 2003, 02:31

The more inevitable war appears, the more likely both the French and the Russians will be to cut a deal, in order to protect their interests. If America's push for war is motivated by oil, then France and Russia's push for peace is no less so - both have lucrative contracts in the region that they are keen to preserve.

It goes on to predict that the French and Russians will sign on for war to protect their economic interests.

PLATO · February 16, 2003, 02:33

The French cannot lose by positioning Naval Hardware in the area.

1.) A compromise will allow them to be in position to join any coalition.

2.) A successful halting of military action against Iraq will allow them to be in position to project power and thus attempt to fill any vacuum created as America begins to withdraw from the region.

3.) Thirdly, and least likely, it will put them in a position to interpose themselves between coalition and Iraqi forces.

Lancer · February 16, 2003, 02:34

Vel, from what I gather, it's not big news but the French have done a back door deal to trade support for the rebels for cocoa.

"Would you care for a hot chocolate sir, or a nice democracy?"

"See Voo Play, Zee Chocky ov courzzze..."

The US will have to straighten that mess out as well one day...

Oerdin · February 16, 2003, 02:39

The de Gaulle looks like it is the best Carrier in Europe; at least on paper. It can launch two planes at the same time while Russian, Italian, Spanish, and British carriers can only launch one at a time. It's 75% heavier then the Brittish Carriers (but the British have 3 carriers to France's 1) but still almost half the size of the largest Russian carrier the Kuznitzov but for some reason the de Gaulle has 33% more planes then the Russian design. The de Gaule is also the only non-American nuclear powered carrier.

All in all not bad.

PLATO · February 16, 2003, 02:41

Quote:

The more inevitable war appears, the more likely both the French and the Russians will be to cut a deal, in order to protect their interests. If America's push for war is motivated by oil, then France and Russia's push for peace is no less so - both have lucrative contracts in the region that they are keen to preserve

This is very close to the truth Duncan. However, as important as those contracts are in the short run, the real issue is power. Both countries have lost much clout in this region in the last 15 years. By discrediting the American position they stand to gain influence in the region regardless of their final stance. Ultimately, both would like to see US policy fail. This would put them in position to move into the ensuing vacuum. Should US policy move forward (as I believe that it will), both still gain stature in the region by forcefully promoting peace and then reluctantly going along to help rid the region and the world of a menace.

As I continue to preach, this struggle has become one between the major powers about influence and power. No country (other than Iraq itself) has made any statement (that I am aware of) that they are convinced that he does not have WMD or that he is fulfilling the terms of 1441.

DuncanK · February 16, 2003, 02:42

Carriers like that are only built for one thing. That can be called protecting interests over seas or it can be called Imperialism.