Kemco Games Forum Index Kemco Games
Kemco Games Forums
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

French Army (or lack thereof)
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Kemco Games Forum Index -> Dai Senryaku VII Modern Military Tactics
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
FNSCAR2005



Joined: 30 Aug 2005
Posts: 2

PostPosted: Aug Tue 30, 2005 6:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

In WWII the French were fighting a new war with old battleplans. Essentially they were prepared for a WWI like war and what they got was much different. Now the French military isn't worth much, but that is because of the gov't's neglect to modernize it's military and properly fund it. Their socialist system is a not conducive to raising a military force that has any sort of parity with the U.S.

I understand that the game need to be balanced, but should my F-22 slaughter any other air superiority fighter. It is stealth and has thrust vector technology. Sorry if a got a lil carried away.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SemperFi2382



Joined: 24 Feb 2005
Posts: 778
Location: Chicago Suburbs, IL USA

PostPosted: Sep Thu 01, 2005 7:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Indeed.

It also would help if they didn't have a warped sense of reality either. There's just something about being a tad too pacifist, isolationist and just plain arrogant that doesn't seem to fit.

Honestly, if you gave them the best weapons available, they would have no idea what to do with them. Think about it, the French ideally don't want to do anything about anyone, so what is going to motivate them to be a bit more proactive in the world?
_________________

"The Object is not to die for your country, but to make the other poor bastard die for his." - General Patton
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Guest






PostPosted: Sep Thu 01, 2005 8:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

By proactive you mean invading inocent countries just to get control over their resources?, or using expensive and well developed military technology to inflict civilian cassualties, or establishing commercial restrictions against some others not so whealty countries just because a bunch of political reasons, eventhough those measures affect inocent civilians?

is that your idea of a proactive country?...or what?
Back to top
Adoug
Site Admin


Joined: 31 Oct 2003
Posts: 757
Location: Seatown

PostPosted: Sep Thu 01, 2005 10:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Or how about getting rid of a person who uses gas on his own civilian population, tortures and rapes his own people for his own pleasure, and kills anyone who even speaks anything againt his government, his person, or is suspected of such things. Regardless of the oil or "resources", a country and it's people and the world do not need a person like that in charge. Be thankful that we have the right to speak against our government if we want to, disagree with each other, listen to what we want, watch what we want and have the conviction enough to try and help those less fortunate. Also, having a youth that is brave enough and motivated enough to try and selflessly help others is a strong testiment to the overall character of our country. Twisted Evil This is my personal oppinion which I am free to express and does not express that of Kemco USA or any of it's affiliates. Twisted Evil
_________________
"The path to Knighthood is paved with strength and nobility, not LSD and sideburns." Black Knight from Family Guy.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SemperFi2382



Joined: 24 Feb 2005
Posts: 778
Location: Chicago Suburbs, IL USA

PostPosted: Sep Thu 01, 2005 11:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

If we had done it right the first time, we wouldn't be there now.

Frankly, whatever hidden agenda the Commander in Chief has (if there is one) is his business. We the people voted for him (well a majority), so therefore, until he leaves office, his policies are what goes.

Don't think for a minute that war will ever be clean and that civilians don't or won't get hurt in the crossfire. Some people seem to think that we (the United States) shouldn't meddle in other people's problems. Okay, then all of you FAIL history. You know why? Because we have tried that policy and the world went to hell in a handbasket as a result. Remember World War I? Yeah, we didn't join in until we were provoked. That was entirely Europe's problem until the US was involved. Oh, how about World War II? Yeah again, we stayed out of it until we were dragged into the war.

Our nation has been built on the policy of going to other nation's in need and lashing out when we are provoked. This goes way back to when our nation was still in it's infant stages. We waged a war because of pirates when larger, more established nations kow towed to the pirates. Did the US? No, we won't accept tyranny here, nor anywhere else.

Here, let me give you a scenario. The US, this very second pulls EVERYTHING we have out everywhere, and I mean everywhere. Now, we will begin a polivy of isolationism where the US will NOT aid anyone in their time of need. Taiwan, Iraq, S. Korea and Israel for starters. China takes Taiwan with no fear of repercussion from Taiwan's ally and provider of military hardware, who is none other than the US. Iraq falls into a bloody civil war and is once again under the control of a regime that will not tolerate difference in opinion. Hmm, can we say Nazi Germany? Oh, wait that's right, he hides the bodies in the desert when he mass murders them, so no holocaust there. S. Korea will be invaded by N. Korea because the US is no longer on the neutral zone to dissuade them from doing so. A new nation now becomes poor and a part of the Communist party. Joy. Israel will fall simply because they don't have the US to back them up. Period. Not to mention, any other nation that is borderline hostile, will know that since the US won't go about meddling in their business, will begin to do as they please.

Economy wise, we lose a few million jobs because since we are not involved anywhere, troops won't be as needed in large numbers, jobs building military hardware will cease to be, we will be at the mercy of other nation's economic gains because since we aren't involved, they can hike oil prices, limit our trade, etc. Sounds like a great idea. Oh wait, even better, we will sell our surplus military hardware so that anyone can have good equipment to wage war elsewhere. Not that we care, because we should be uninvolved with the rest of the planet. Yeah, we can now look inward to deal with the homeless and jobless. That's good, but what do we do with them? We have no economy now, there's less jobs and I'm sure that more jobs would be lost as we find cheaper work elsewhere.

Oh, I'm not even scratching the surface yet, but I'm sparing the rod for the moment. Learn your history, read about what's going on in the BIG picture and stop thinking we (the US) are the bad guys here. Then again, you might like dictators.

---------------

As for you Doug, I appreciate the kind words. You speak the truth though when it comes to our armed forces. IF we really didn't want to be there, our morale wouldn't be as high as it is.

Nobody said that it would be easy, after all, look back and see how long it took to repair Germany and Japan after World War II. So, the time we are spending in Iraq is a drop in the bucket. Granted, we didn't have to deal with insurgents, but all the more reason we can't leave.
_________________

"The Object is not to die for your country, but to make the other poor bastard die for his." - General Patton
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
JVGFanatic



Joined: 07 Dec 2004
Posts: 275
Location: Portland (the westardly one)

PostPosted: Sep Thu 01, 2005 2:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Frankly, whatever hidden agenda the Commander in Chief has (if there is one) is his business.

Whadda load of crap. Wink Twisted Evil
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
ROBERT



Joined: 13 May 2005
Posts: 122

PostPosted: Sep Thu 01, 2005 5:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

One thing is for sure: uncle Sam does not help people around the world just because he thinks is fare and just, or because he hates tyranny, or because he wants to help people...it's all about the money and the power gentlemen, please don't be naive...he "helps" when he is going to get a good deal out of it, otherwise he fakes blindness.

He would even support tyranny in any country if that regime benefits his interests.....and what's the magical situation about it?.....he manage his population's public oppinion so damn good that they even think he is doing the right thing......

Just my personal opinion, not saying he is good or bad, just saying it's all about money, not helping people or building a better world
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
ElricJC
Guest





PostPosted: Sep Thu 01, 2005 5:37 pm    Post subject: Torn Reply with quote

That's the rub for me...

1: I am not a fan of G. W., never have been and never will be. I cannot respect a leader who only meets with his constituents and ignores those who would like to ask him the hard questions. He'll stick to his sycophants because it's easier. I also can't respect him for his treatment of a certain mother who lost her son in Iraq. He doesn't need to cry to her and say he's sorry, but merely approaching her and acknowledging her loss would go a long way. To be honest, for all his bluster he strikes me as an inflexible coward, for more reasons than just this. He doesn't seem like a Republican to me at all, he's more of a Nationalist, and almost Facist to be honest.

2: I did not support the Iraq war, at first because I felt their 'evidence' was fishy at best, even though I had no access to it (as it was sensitive information), and considering the constant smack we had been putting on Mr. Mustache for a decade, I simply couldn't see how he could get the roses up on a WMD project. Apparently I was right.

3: I we want to talk evil sonsofbitches, there are many more tin-pot dictators and war lords all over the world who are just as bad if not worse (*points to Africa and South America*), or to a recognizable enemy who actually HAS developed WMDs (*points to North Korea*). The reasoning didn't seem sound to just go after Saddam. I felt right about Afghanistan, but not about Iraq.

4: The handling of the military situation after the "war" was "over" has simply been horrible. Fighting men will die, it's what happens, but if a more concise, cohesive plan had been designed after the fighting stopped not as many of our men and our allies' men (and women of course) would have had to die for a war whose focuse shifted from WMD to "liberation" as if that had been the focus from the beginning.

5: The propagandists in Washington (Cheney chief among them) tried to sell this war as bigger and better than the last, stating we had more allied nations behind us then before. Oh, he's right, numerically, but... ummm, when your second most powerful allied nation is Poland (and nothing against poland, but come on, they're not a military powerhouse), then I'd say your coalition is a bit weak. Wag the dog, not appreciated.

6: On the other hand, I am a military historian by education, am from a military family, and believe deeply in the strength of the Democratic Republic. I have always supported our soldiers and, while I don't care for this mishandled conflict, I don't want to see anyone blame our fighting men and women for what's happened. Militarily, we have done well, very well, but the logistics have been... weak. And the war, while initially popular with many Americans, has lost much of its home support. It isn't a conflict the people can get behind because the stakes seem unbalanced, and we can't feel the effects. But, at the same time we can't just yank out - that would cause all sorts of ripples that would turn into tsunamis very quickly.

7. Also, I believe deeply in fighting evil, and Saddam is most definitely evil. But we can't fight all the evil in this world at the same time, so we need to pick our targets, and fighting evil isn't just OUR (the U.S.'s) responsibility, but everyone's. But when your leader starts throwing around "crusade", it sends chills up the spine of every historian I know, including myself. The fight against evil cannot be polarized by religion, and G. W. has allowed his personal beliefs to affect his secular position too much. I don't like extremists, of any kind.

Now while we have these problems, there are problems with being too aloof, such as the situation with modern France. The arm of might and glory has long since been cut off of France's body, but France is still experiencing the phantoms of feeling in its stump. But it cannot swing its sword anymore, plus the political atmosphere in France has crippled its military. Let's face it, you can't be a true world power without a strong military. Japan has been a kind of exception to this rule, but the situation with Japan is quite a bit different. France has the RIGHT to keep a military, and one that can go abraod, but it had reserved its forces mostly to "peacekeeping" duties, and less of that now than in its past. Socialism has weakened them, and at the same time a growing sense of Nationalism and "purity" has been leaking into France. Much of the modern French are not even native, and there are many natively descended French who feel their own culture is being threatened. All this internal conflict, combined with strong racism and a sense of historical superiority may lead to the fall of the French government (again. If I am right France is in its 5th Republic), and a more Nationalist regime could take power.

This could lead to other problems, as France feels the urge to bust out later, but lacks the infrastructure, equipment, and leadership to do it. France doesn't want to be a two-bit power, but also doesn't want to break out of its shell. What little we hear about the French military is bad, especially with reports of child prostitution and pornography with French units in Angola. Honestly, I feel sorry for France. At this time, they simply cannote support a full-scale, modern army for foreign combat operations, and as much as some French say this is unimportant, having a weak military can make you feel like you're walking around without any pants on. It's hard to be taken seriously when you aren't wearing any pants.
Back to top
ROBERT



Joined: 13 May 2005
Posts: 122

PostPosted: Sep Thu 01, 2005 5:51 pm    Post subject: Re: Torn Reply with quote

ElricJC wrote:

3: I we want to talk evil sonsofbitches, there are many more tin-pot dictators and war lords all over the world who are just as bad if not worse (*points to Africa and South America*), or to a recognizable enemy who actually HAS developed WMDs (*points to North Korea*). The reasoning didn't seem sound to just go after Saddam. I felt right about Afghanistan, but not about Iraq.


That's exactly my point Smile

It gets me to think that the point is not exactly to fight evil as they said it is
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Adoug
Site Admin


Joined: 31 Oct 2003
Posts: 757
Location: Seatown

PostPosted: Sep Thu 01, 2005 9:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

What I like, is that none of us in this country need to fear reprecussions because we think differently and express it....NOW that we all have spoken our peace...back to the games! Twisted Evil
_________________
"The path to Knighthood is paved with strength and nobility, not LSD and sideburns." Black Knight from Family Guy.


Last edited by Adoug on Sep Thu 01, 2005 11:16 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SemperFi2382



Joined: 24 Feb 2005
Posts: 778
Location: Chicago Suburbs, IL USA

PostPosted: Sep Thu 01, 2005 10:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

JVGFanatic wrote:
Frankly, whatever hidden agenda the Commander in Chief has (if there is one) is his business.

Whadda load of crap. Wink Twisted Evil


LMAO, Indeed. Just trying to keep some of my opinions of my Commander in Chief out of the ways.

Anyhow, they are all valid points indeed. So I agree with Dougs sentiments.

Ooh Rah! Carry on. Cool
_________________

"The Object is not to die for your country, but to make the other poor bastard die for his." - General Patton
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
irashunal
Guest





PostPosted: Sep Fri 02, 2005 4:16 pm    Post subject: France is going modern!!! Reply with quote

Check out this hella gun setup...

http://www.defense-update.com/products/c/caesar.htm

I like the concept of this 155mm road warrior. It's not your great grandpa's cannon! It looks pretty dang cool.
Back to top
SemperFi2382



Joined: 24 Feb 2005
Posts: 778
Location: Chicago Suburbs, IL USA

PostPosted: Sep Fri 02, 2005 10:27 pm    Post subject: Re: France is going modern!!! Reply with quote

irashunal wrote:
Check out this hella gun setup...

http://www.defense-update.com/products/c/caesar.htm

I like the concept of this 155mm road warrior. It's not your great grandpa's cannon! It looks pretty dang cool.


Not that's a gun. Laughing
_________________

"The Object is not to die for your country, but to make the other poor bastard die for his." - General Patton
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
irashunal



Joined: 18 Sep 2005
Posts: 11

PostPosted: Sep Sun 18, 2005 9:15 pm    Post subject: no air power at sea? Reply with quote

Why does France only have one carrier based jet?! It's great that they actually have a carrier to use but i would think that they would have at least a couple of different jet types at their disposal...

Granted, i don't guess the French put a whole lot of effort into building a large mobile naval force since they don't have any investments abroad nowadays like they once did, but still....
_________________
If at first U don't succeed, goto a higher caliber.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
SemperFi2382



Joined: 24 Feb 2005
Posts: 778
Location: Chicago Suburbs, IL USA

PostPosted: Sep Mon 19, 2005 8:03 am    Post subject: Re: no air power at sea? Reply with quote

irashunal wrote:
Why does France only have one carrier based jet?! It's great that they actually have a carrier to use but i would think that they would have at least a couple of different jet types at their disposal...

Granted, i don't guess the French put a whole lot of effort into building a large mobile naval force since they don't have any investments abroad nowadays like they once did, but still....


Well, in the game Russia (to my knowledge) only has one carrier based aircraft in the game as well. I say this because the Yak Forger isn't available for use. This might be a simple oversight, or just something to reduce clutter.

However, it's plausible that the French don't have much of a Naval Air presence and therefore only have one type of aircraft at their disposal. I'm not too keen on what France deploys nowadays considering that you don't see them out doing much.
_________________

"The Object is not to die for your country, but to make the other poor bastard die for his." - General Patton
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Kemco Games Forum Index -> Dai Senryaku VII Modern Military Tactics All times are GMT - 7 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3

 
Jump to: