Look, if there is one thing I am not into is arguing with internet blowhards. There is not point. They are not interested in exchanging opinions; they just want to blather in the hopes someone will tell them they are right. So, for example, when I write "I define world power this way, and super power this way" (incidentally, the definitions I use are the ones in common use among security studies professionals generally). Instead of saying "oh, well this is I define these things - it's a misunderstanding," you try to get me tied up in an obsure fantasy of a sub-thread (Egypt vs. France: how laughable... maybe French staff officers work on this scenario when they need busy work), ignore the little kernel of misunderstanding, and blather on about whatever it is that you were doing. That is NOT debate. Looking at the other threads that interest me, it is your pattern. That makes you a blowhard in my book. The Ted Kennedy comment makes you a right-wing blowhard at that, and judging from your obsession with belittling the Frogs, you are a right-wing Francophobic blowhard. I don't waste my time on blowhards of any variety, nevermind the partisan, jingoistic variety it with a chip on their shoulder. France is a world power. I don't know anyone who tries to deny the obvious, especially not in defense, diplomatic, or academic circles. I think they have better power projection capability than the UK. I'll happily debate that capacity. At no time did I say they were in the same league as the US. According to your outlook "world power" only includes the US. Fine. Das ist das ende.

Look, if there is one thing I am not into is arguing with internet blowhards. There is not point. They are not interested in exchanging opinions; they just want to blather in the hopes someone will tell them they are right. So, for example, when I write "I define world power this way, and super power this way" (incidentally, the definitions I use are the ones in common use among security studies professionals generally). Instead of saying "oh, well this is I define these things - it's a misunderstanding," you try to get me tied up in an obsure fantasy of a sub-thread (Egypt vs. France: how laughable... maybe French staff officers work on this scenario when they need busy work), ignore the little kernel of misunderstanding, and blather on about whatever it is that you were doing. That is NOT debate. Looking at the other threads that interest me, it is your pattern. That makes you a blowhard in my book. The Ted Kennedy comment makes you a right-wing blowhard at that, and judging from your obsession with belittling the Frogs, you are a right-wing Francophobic blowhard. I don't waste my time on blowhards of any variety, nevermind the partisan, jingoistic variety it with a chip on their shoulder. France is a world power. I don't know anyone who tries to deny the obvious, especially not in defense, diplomatic, or academic circles. I think they have better power projection capability than the UK. I'll happily debate that capacity. At no time did I say they were in the same league as the US. According to your outlook "world power" only includes the US. Fine. Das ist das ende.

I'm an American who likes France, but not Ted Kennedy. I enjoy this website, and find many of the threads informative. There is a great deal of Francophobia however, and not just from Americans. This is an interesting phenomenon and someone should do a doctoral thesis on it. However this site is best when people don't judge or villify an entire nation based on the individuals who post here. By the way, great line "francophobe fantasy".

Johnboy, It seems to me that the guy who has a problem is johnboy. Look: 1. GIXX did not start this thread. 2. It is a theoretical thread and, while absurd, is legitimate on this board. 3. The given hypothesis is overly aggressive from the point of view of the French proposition as simple numbers and a basic analysis of logistics demonstrates. 4. No one here (well, almost no one) is dumping on the French per se. Just the hypothesis that France can actually force project a major operation like this. 5. The sub-context of this debate (whither relative economic – and thus military – power is going with the various players) is also legitimate. 6. In a prior thread (U.S. vs. EU) GIXX took the affirmative – a difficult task – and was reviled for it even though his analysis had some merit and the overall discussion was a lot of fun. Now GIXX supports the opposition and his data are much stronger than the opposition data in the U.S. vs. EU fracas. He is still reviled even though – given the context of the information available – he is clearly supported by much less speculation than the affirmative side. Too many interesting and fun threads die in name calling and pouting. While GIXX has been prodded into pissing matches in the past I can understand his reaction as some folks can get pretty nasty based upon very little definitive data. Finally, a comment on the affirmative hypothesis: France cannot do it. While a light amphibious capability is clearly available to the French military there is no indicator that anything like the scale of operations proposed can be supported. As a guy who, many, many years ago was a U.S. Marine, the one thing that I came away with is that amphibious operations require practice, practice, practice and planning, planning, planning. Indeed, practice to the point of being disgusting and planning to the point of absurdity. There are literally thousands of little things in combat loading, vehicle sea support systems (at least that’s what it used to be called – e.g. how do you wrap an M60 so it is not damaged by saltwater and still be able to run and gun the minute it hits the beach and so forth), repair / replacement part offloading priority and on and on. Do this even a little wrong and you have chaos on the beach. No one in the last 60 or so years has any experience with this and on this scale other than the U.S. France does not have the combat lift capability, the supply train capability or the air support capability to allow it to make any mistakes. So the operation must be perfect and, even then, it is problematic. So, at the worst case, if the Egyptians get just a little bit lucky then this is a disaster for France. This has all of the earmarks of a death trip. BTW, the title of this post is not a slam. I could not resist the "Wind in the Willows" analogy for this. Best, wjr

Its all in fun. FS and I have a different opinion of what France can do. While I do not particularly care for French foriegn policy. I have no animosity what so ever toward him, period. But from a military point of view the operation HE PROPOSED is not possible. My intent is to show why. Notice I am not calling him vulgar names or any such thing as has been done to me. Particularly by bluewings. I am simply supporting my position with startegic and tactical fact. If you feel differently give him a hand rather than label all of us in here who disagree with him as francophiles. Also no one is saying that France is not a world power. We are only trying to question the degree to with she can influence things militarily. And by that definition French military power declines exponentially the further you get away from French territory. Now you claim to trust the word of various analist, professionals and academics. Some of us are just that.

I question France being a world power. I believe they are a major power and even a regional super power but: 1:They do not have worldwide military ability. Regional yes worldwide no. 2:The Franc is not accepted as a "pocket currency" in most of the world. 3:They have very little political clout outside of Africa and middle east. 4:A UN veto means very little in the real world when a nations vested interest is at stake. If you want to discuss a war footing (4 yr)period. Look at what the US or even Russia has in reserve. US: Thousand plus tanks and planes, a couple hundred ships at least three aircraft carriers. You can rebuild quicker than you can build. Also look at reserve manpower. Can a nation pull up its reserve manpower without damaging its economy. If you disagree, thats what the threads is about. Don't assume that someone is ANTI french because they disagree with you. Argue your point and change our mind don't call us names (that works both ways). My "opinion" is the limitations external and enternal( self inflicted) limits Frances global reach and the future does not look any better for France.

Without nukes, it certainly would not be a "world" power. One could make a legitimate argument that Inda and not France should be on the UNSC.

I think what is happening here is some are confusing technological knowledge, modern economics and culture with actual power. In many ways France is no more powerful militarily than Japan or even North Korea.

Nobody would question that Egypt is not a world power. And it is clear that defeating(invading and conquering like we did Iraq)Egypt is beyond the means of the French.

Now if Frances tries to invade Burma and Egypt at the same time, it'll be rather interesting. Because China has around 20,000 military personnel stationed in Sudan, and there's no small possibility of us defending Sudan's airspace against foreign intrusions....