Merger of Britain's and France's armed forces

If we reduced our forces and stopped sticking our noses in where its not wanted then perhaps we wouldn't NEED two aircraft carriers etc!

Also, I think you'll find that proposal is that both forces aircraft/carriers simply be set up so as to allow each others use.
There is no suggestion of sharing one carrier between the two nations, only that one carrier always be available to either nation (eg during a re-fit/repair etc).

Our entire country has been little more than a shared aircraft carrier for the last 60 years anyway :roll:
 
JohnH:
We have to share with somebody who actually HAS an aircraft carrier. That leaves us with the choice of the Indians (ex-HMS Hermes), Chinese, Russians, and Japanese (helicopter destroyers are de-facto carriers)...or the French. The Canadians have no carrier.

I am fully aware that the French weren't in NATO until recently - but the Germans, Turks, Danes, Dutch, Norwegians, Italians and Spanish also speak languages other than English and operated OK in NATO. Are you saying that a French unit would be different? (OK, jokes apart).

The awkward choice was cooperate or hope that crises only occurred when carriers were available. pragmatism won, and frankly the French were in the same hole.
Nobody (especially not me) consider this an ideal situation. Sadly we got left with the daft position that cancellation was costlier than going ahead.
 
Great, merge with the french, who better really, we share the same bit of sea and at the nearest point we are only 22 miles apart. The other thing is if we are going to become more closely tied to the french, we might actually learn something from them, for they are their own people, a people to be admired, not despised because of ancient squabbles.

Regards language, more and more of the youth of France are now using English as a language that due to media from America, in fact it is being seen as English is the language of communication with other countries.

But one thing that does cheer regards a merge with France is the question of wars, maybe being with them might temper our need to go and support the Americans in their commercial wars.

For that is what it is all really about, the war on terror is to keep the funding flowing for those that like to play with big boys toys, people who if you read Freud, have not developed beyond the penile stage of human development, a penis and the damage that can be done with it, curious the shape of these things that get shot or fired at others.

The other thing of course is commercial interests overseas, what someone has got and the commercial sector want, the weaker the country the easier it is to find a reason to be there.

Iraq's Oil and vast mineral reserves under Afghanistan, who knew ? That and the fact that Afghanistan is the source of the Opium trade, strange our boys are out there and are prohibited from destroying the fields where they find them, reasons along the lines of sole crop can't reduce the people to poverty, why the hell not, it's not stopped them before, Iraq for example.

The wars we suffer are nothing more than protecting commercial interests, commerce upsets people abroad, they retaliate and the people suffer what we do and we are paying for it out of our pockets and we will never reap any rewards, the uninformed tax payer who is well trained to rally behind flags and notions of sovreignty will always be those that pay with blood and taxes, it has always been so.

The deficit, aye the banks might have been something to do with that, but how much of the banks is corporate interests and with that the spending that is going on in these long wars, surely that has got to have a big impact on us, how many billions have been spent, billions that could be better used making a rather small country with a loud past become something useful in this modern age of bigger players.

Going in with the french I see as a good idea and not because of the financial aspect, maybe Britain might learn to say 'non', or even gesticulate in a British Agincourt way 'merde' when corporate run nations request help for commercial expeditions overseas.
 
if we go to war against the french does this mean that our lads take off from one end of the carrier and then bomb the other end of the ship.. :D
 
gibbleking":1d1bz9ih said:
if we go to war against the french does this mean that our lads take off from one end of the carrier and then bomb the other end of the ship.. :D

No, thats the Americans job :wink:
 
we could lease a half of our share to greenpeace to claw a few quid back...the french would love that...
 
hamster":60n0rfh3 said:
We have to share with somebody who actually HAS an aircraft carrier. That leaves us with the choice of the Indians (ex-HMS Hermes), Chinese, Russians, and Japanese (helicopter destroyers are de-facto carriers)...or the French. The Canadians have no carrier.
Oh bollocks, you're absolutely right. :oops: Well, that's my plan sinking quicker than the General Belgrano.

"Dear PM of Canada, Could you please buy an aircraft carrier? We're building a couple that we don't need, if that's any help. Your purchase could save the indignity that will be suffered by the Royal Navy when it's surface fleet is reduced to a part-time aircraft carrier, a couple of destroyers and a handful of leaky rowing boats. Thank you."

hamster":60n0rfh3 said:
Are you saying that a French unit would be different? (OK, jokes apart).
You read my mind... ;)

hamster":60n0rfh3 said:
The awkward choice was cooperate or hope that crises only occurred when carriers were available. pragmatism won, and frankly the French were in the same hole.
Nobody (especially not me) consider this an ideal situation. Sadly we got left with the daft position that cancellation was costlier than going ahead.
I think that your analysis is spot on, Hamster. But it still feels like a sad day. Who knows? Maybe the French feel the same way.
 
JohnH":22s54ly0 said:
"Dear PM of Canada, Could you please buy an aircraft carrier? We're building a couple that we don't need, if that's any help. Your purchase could save the indignity that will be suffered by the Royal Navy when it's surface fleet is reduced to a part-time aircraft carrier, a couple of destroyers and a handful of leaky rowing boats. Thank you."

ROTFL. :lol:
Maybe you should send this as a letter to The Times...
 
Back
Top