NationStates Jolt Archive

It's all too easy for a tank to be damaged or crippled in close combat, if the people fighting are dedicated.
Come on, they're rowdy kids. This isn't like the former GDR, where everyone was versed in disabling tanks from school.
Send in a few Leclercs, and they will simply stay at home for the night. Then you can start cleaning up and seeing what you can do to prevent it from happening again. No one has to be killed, I don't even think you need to give the tanks authorisation to use force. Simply their presence will be enough.

You would probably have to repair the streets though afterwards...not sure how well urban roads cope with 55t of steel.

I've seen nothing to indicate that they are tactically stupid (strategically stupid, yes). And we've seen, all over the world, what happens to the crew of a fighting vehicle when they dismount into a crowd of people who have been just trying to kill them. They get ripped limb from limb. (Hell, some places that happens to people who make a wrong turn, to say nothing of driving a tank through a rioting neighborhood.)
But that was in Baghdad, with a genuinely angry mob who had just witnessed their jail being destroyed by a few Brits saving their own guys from Iraqi Justice.
This is, as I said before, kids who torch stuff not even because of their own political convictions, but simply out of frustration and probably for excitement. No one's going to risk their life for this.

Hating Jews has always been a popular Continental pastime, so this is nothing new.
You get a big :rolleyes: for that, courtesy of all the Jews killed on the British isles throughout the middle ages.

Come on, they're rowdy kids. This isn't like the former GDR, where everyone was versed in disabling tanks from school.
Send in a few Leclercs, and they will simply stay at home for the night. Then you can start cleaning up and seeing what you can do to prevent it from happening again. No one has to be killed, I don't even think you need to give the tanks authorisation to use force. Simply their presence will be enough.

*Probably*. That said, I would still authorize the use of force anyway. The way to have your bluff accepted is to not be bluffing in the first place. Anything else is begging for disaster.

You would probably have to repair the streets though afterwards...not sure how well urban roads cope with 55t of steel.

True dat! :D

You get a big :rolleyes: for that, courtesy of all the Jews killed on the British isles throughout the middle ages.

Do you take special ahistorical hating england classes or something? There were only a few thousand jews in england during the middle ages, and then for not very long. And in fact, more jews were killed in one single massacre in Mainz and Strasborg, then actually lived in England before their expulsion during that time.

You know, I am not going to say that during middle ages England was a tolerant haven - mostly because it was the middle ages - but in comparision to the continent, yes, it was fairly humane.

What's more violent anti-semitism was given up in the UK a lot earlier than in the rest of Europe. (If indeed the rest of europe has given it up, that remains to be seen).

The store owners, the car owners, the property owners etc., think it's a war and they are being attacked and they are losing. They ask, "Where is the French armed forces?"

The insurgency gathers strength.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4413250.stm

Sure, I like to crack French jokes as much as the next guy, but I have full faith in the ability of the French law enforcement and military.

Now get in there and put the uprising in its place. Nothing tells people that are getting violent to shut up like a good old fashioned armored unit and a few mounted machine guns rolling through your neighborhood.

Then address the underlying causes. Unemployment? Fix your economy! There's a reason why freer markets run lower unemployment rates consistently... ;)

(If indeed the rest of europe has given it up, that remains to be seen).

*Points at the high rates of anti-Semitic crimes in France*

Then address the underlying causes. Unemployment? Fix your economy! There's a reason why freer markets run lower unemployment rates consistently... ;)Chirac has been privatizing and "freeing" the financial market since he is in power (the latest step being the privitizing of the largest electricity supplier in the world - EDF). He has also suppressed a lot of social housing and has lowered taxed consistentlly. That is what the people are sick about. They want social justice and less repressive police.

Gilitine? I can't spell it.

guil·lo·tine ( P ) Pronunciation Key (gl-tn, g-)
n.
A device consisting of a heavy blade held aloft between upright guides and dropped to behead the victim below.

Stupid french are getting thier ass kicked by thier own country
how pathetic are they?

Chirac has been privatizing and "freeing" the financial market since he is in power (the latest step being the privitizing of the largest electricity supplier in the world - EDF). He has also suppressed a lot of social housing and has lowered taxed consistentlly. That is what the people are sick about. They want social justice and less repressive police.

Somehow I suspect this goes a little deeper than that. It's my understanding that the protesters/rioters have been predominantly Muslim. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/03/international/europe/03paris.html?ex=1146632400&en=f41c5b4fa462c080&ei=5087&excamp=GGGNparisriots

Somehow I suspect this goes a little deeper than that. It's my understanding that the protesters/rioters have been predominantly Muslim. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
The riots started in arab-domminated areas but the rioters are not necessarily muslim. They are mostly young they mostly don't care about religion. I don't know why they constently have to report that the riot started in immigrant-domminated area in foeign press. It was the poorest area of France, and I don't think it is relevant that they are mostly of african origin.

The riots started in arab-domminated areas but the rioters are not necessarily muslim. They are mostly young they mostly don't care about religion. I don't know why they constently have to report that the riot started in immigrant-domminated area in foeign press. It was the poorest area of France, and I don't think it is relevant that they are mostly of african origin.Actually, there's more religion involved here than one might suspect. You have to realise that in these poor Arab neighbourhoods that these disadvantaged youths readily turn to Islam for guidance, just as an American might turn for the Christian God for guidance when things seem bad for them. The fact that these people are in this poor socioeconomic situation only fuels their hate for France and the western society in general, and the values of Islamic fundamentalism are easily compatible with this belief.

The fact that Muslim groups in France have issued a fatwa against the violence only serves to show how much religion in a part of the culture of these youths. I don't blame them entirely though, it's the conditions that they've been put under in France that's caused them to become violent and extremist.

Some people might be interested in this:

Cars burnt and arrest made:

http://cutfoldglue.orcon.net.nz/frenchriots1.gif

(blog post (http://www.cfng.co.nr/index.php?post=1131354648)).

Ciao!

Riot police hurt by shots as France vows order will be restored (http://www.afp.com/english/news/stories/051106235810.lcmmq3rv.html)

PARIS (AFP) - Police were hurt by shots and baseball-bat-wielding youths as rioting raged on for its eleventh night in France despite a vow from President Jacques Chirac that public order would be restored.

[v]Thirty riot squad officers were hit by buckshot fired at them in suburbs south of Paris[/b], police said. Two were hospitalised with serious wounds, and were visited late Sunday by Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy.

Elsewhere, officers were targeted by gangs roaming low-income neighbourhoods on the outskirts of major cities and setting fire to scores of vehicles and properties.

The violence -- the worst the country has seen since 1968 student revolts -- continued despite increasingly tough reactions from police, who have arrested more than 800 people since the troubles began.

In all, police said at midnight (2300 GMT Sunday), 34 police officers had been lightly wounded during the first part of the night while 528 vehicles had been torched, the majority outside the Paris region, and 95 people arrested.

Chirac said "the absolute priority is restoring security and public order," after chairing an emergency meeting with key ministers Sunday evening.

"Those who want to sow violence of fear, they will be arrested, judged and punished," he promised, adding that "certain decisions" had been taken to boost the police and court decisions during the crisis.

In the western city of Rouen, a car was used as a battering ram against a police station, while in Toulouse, in the south, police had to fire tear gas grenades to push back a mob carrying baseball bats and throwing stones and bottles.

"These individuals seem to be looking for contact with police, and they are attacking us, unlike during the other nights," a senior officer told AFP.

Arsonists also set fire to cars and trash cans in the cities of Nantes, Orleans and Rennes.

The new edge to the violence confirmed the riots were worsening, adding to a weekend that took the unrest to new heights with hundreds of vehicles burnt and up to 200 localities affected.

So far, more than 3,500 vehicles have been torched, including, overnight Sunday, eight trucks parked near the town of Roanne. Schools and businesses were also set alight in various places around the country.

Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin, who attended the emergency meeting with Interior Minister Sarkozy and the ministers for defence, justice, the economy and education, said more police would be deployed wherever required.

There will be "a reinforcement of security forces anywhere in the country if it is necessary," he said.

"We will not accept any lawless zone."

The extent of the unrest was brought home overnight Saturday, when 51 cars were petrol-bombed in the heart of Paris -- the first time the centre of the capital suffered significant attacks.

A police chief, Frederic Aureal, said his officers were encountering an unprecedented hostility from gangs, which he described as "prepared, structured, armed".

"We have come face-to-face with people who have attacked us with picks, petanque balls, many Molotov cocktails," he said.

Police overnight Saturday discovered a petrol-bomb factory south of the capital with 50 bottles ready for use. Ski masks were also found.

Police helicopters fitted with cameras and searchlights were being used to pursue youths who were starting fires then racing away on scooters.

Officers were also breaking down doors in public housing estates to get offenders.

So far, no one has been killed in the unrest, which was sparked October 27 by the electrocution deaths of two teenagers who hid in an electrical sub-station in northeastern Paris to escape a police identity check.

But some of the injuries have been serious. At least two people have been badly burnt by Molotov cocktails: a fireman who had his face disfigured, and a handicapped woman doused with fuel on an ambushed bus.

A 61-year-old was also in a coma after being hit by an assailant in a public housing estate, and a South Korean female TV reporter was kicked unconscious by assailants in a northern suburb on Saturday.

Youths, in interviews, have boasted that they were intensifying the violence because of a sort of "competition" between gangs from different suburbs to get media attention.

They have also expressed anger at Sarkozy, who described delinquents in the suburbs as "rabble" and vowed to clean up crime in the neighbourhoods "with a power-hose."

The United States, Britain, Canada and Russia have all warned their citizens against travelling through some of the worst-hit areas of France.

Sounds like a civil war. Oh wait, maybe it IS- from the rioters' viewpoint: (http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=uri:2005-11-06T174107Z_01_SCH661731_RTRUKOC_0_US-FRANCE-RIOTS-EVREUX.xml&pageNumber=1&summit=)

Local youngsters expected more violence on the outskirts of Evreux.

"It's civil war now," said one in a hooded top.

Relatively small number of people in a few isolated areas. There's a lot of hurt feelings, to put it very mildly, but I don't think its a civil war.

There need's to be something like that in Lisbon. It would help alot the parking problems we are having :/

There need's to be something like that in Lisbon. It would help alot the parking problems we are having :/


Lisbons a beatiful city. Wouldnt want to see it on fire. With that said can we burn your car first?

Seconded. There's no parking in Portsmouth either.

But seriously, the rioting is a serious problem - one that has been years in the making - but I hardly think France will crash and burn, much as some wish they would. They will work it out in the usual handwringing way they need to address the root of the problem. Something they, and we, have been ignoring.

Still think France isn't on fire?
Yes.

Haven't we enough of these threads yet? I think this is the 3rd on the very same topic.

Oh HW, you didn't highlight two key lines in the article which gives an indication of the origins of the violence
Riot police hurt by shots as France vows order will be restored (http://www.afp.com/english/news/stories/051106235810.lcmmq3rv.html)

Elsewhere, officers were targeted by gangs roaming low-income neighbourhoods on the outskirts of major cities and setting fire to scores of vehicles and properties.



Officers were also breaking down doors in public housing estates to get offenders.

They have also expressed anger at Sarkozy, who described delinquents in the suburbs as "rabble" and vowed to clean up crime in the neighbourhoods "with a power-hose."

Sarkozy is loathed by the majority of the public. He is seen as the cause of a lot of this. He is even disliked within his own party!

A civil war? Hah! Hah....ahahahahhaahaha!! The world couldn't call Northern Ireland a civil war after 30 years! And you call THIS worse then the 'Troubles'?

ROFLMAO!

Seems to me that France is quickly going from a bunch of kids rioting to a full blown violent revolution. They're shooting at the police now. And the french government has admitted that these people are coordinating on cell phones and PDA's. Even though the French government denies the people involved are talking to each other. This looks a lot like one of those revolutions that are common in French history for some reason. Ah well, this is what happens when you oppress the masses.
And the French condemned America for fascists and for ill treatment of minorities. Well, at least America's minorities aren't violently rising against the government cause our government treats everyone equally under the law.

And so much for the French model of governance supposedly being the best model of democracy in the world. I think America has them beat there too. That's probably because the American government is much much more flexible than any of the European, latin american, african, or asian governments are. Such that if there was a change in society that required a change in laws or in the government, to get the change in other nations, you have violently oust the government. Fortunately, in America, you need no such thing cause we have this little thing in the Constitution that says if you don't like the way things are run:
1. You vote out the pols or you can remove them: a. President by impeachment, b. Supreme Justices by impeachment, c. members of Congress by recall.
2. You can always change the constititution itself if you can get a lot of the right people to agree with you.
3. And preceding all that, you always have the right protest no matter what your reason for protesting is.

Yes.

Seconded.

And so much for the French model of governance supposedly being the best model of democracy in the world. I think America has them beat there too. That's probably because the American government is much much more flexible than any of the European, latin american, african, or asian governments are. Such that if there was a change in society that required a change in laws or in the government, to get the change in other nations, you have violently oust the government. Fortunately, in America, you need no such thing cause we have this little thing in the Constitution that says if you don't like the way things are run:
1. You vote out the pols or you can remove them: a. President by impeachment, b. Supreme Justices by impeachment, c. members of Congress by recall.
2. You can always change the constititution itself if you can get a lot of the right people to agree with you.
3. And preceding all that, you always have the right protest no matter what your reason for protesting is.
Pray tell, Whittier--, how the hell are European and several other gvts. different? You must really be confused.

1. You vote out the pols or you can remove them: a. President by impeachment, b. Supreme Justices by impeachment, c. members of Congress by recall.
2. You can always change the constititution itself if you can get a lot of the right people to agree with you.
3. And preceding all that, you always have the right protest no matter what your reason for protesting is.

You....moron.
You have pretty much described the political system of all democratic countries.
Except for 1c. We have 'votes of no-confidence' in our respective Parliaments.

Bet you don't own a passport do you?

Well, at least America's minorities aren't violently rising against the government cause our government treats everyone equally under the law.

They don't? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots)

Do you take special ahistorical hating england classes or something?
Meh. despite my attempts, my uni didn't want to offer them...

I was merely addressing the unsubstantiated assertion that Europeans are anti-semitic because of something that happened 60 years ago.
Nothing particular against Britain, I just thought I'd be a little more creative in my rebuttal to always the same tired stabbing.
I understand that in many circles mere criticising of Israeli policy can lead to such allegations, but seriously, if you are going to say that Europeans are all Nazis, then feel free - but please do back it up.

As for Britain and the Jews, here is a brief history. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_England It might also be noted that there always seemed to be a smaller percentage of Jews living in England than for example in Germany - maybe that was part of the reason for why progroms and other violence wasn't quite as frequent.

They don't? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots)
That is a very good point too.

They don't? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots)

That doesn't count. Blacks aren't considered people in the USA. ;)

(That's a JOKE, i'm not serious, so nobody get annoyed, now.)

Rather than join the general "Whittier-Hunt" (hehehe), I'll just quickly state my general feeling about this.

I don't think it is politically motivated for most. To be honest, I can't believe that anyone who ever visited a high school (especially a poor one) would think that anything anyone there did was politically motivated. Hell, you'd probably get bashed for even mentioning some of those complex words for being a braniac.
Most of them are kids, who are letting out their general anger - at the police, at the system, at everything that went wrong in their lives.
That they are communicating on cell phones...well, show me someone who isn't communicating with cell phones, then we'll talk more.

So I am very disappointed with the way Sarkozy has handled this, and I think he needs to step down - someone's head will have to roll, if only as a sacrifice to the masses.
They should simply shut this down: Send in the military, let a few Leclercs roll up there and you'll see that most of the kids would rather stay home than risk being shot at with an assault rifle, or a MBT Cannon. They should've done it a week ago, but for whatever reason they didn't.

As for France and revolutions: I suggest you have a look at pretty much any country in Europe and you'll find that France isn't much of an outlier anyways. I can think of two in Germany without looking, France gets two as well. Then there was at least one in Austria...

Americans, stop day-dreaming. If you don't know, you should become aware of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_1968 .
Did that mean much? I think not. Let it die.

(Also: France has had about six major unrests in the past 220 years. Not to mention other violent events. Most had no consequence. All should be interpreted with objectivity.

STOP THE HUBRIS.)

I don't think it is politically motivated for most. To be honest, I can't believe that anyone who ever visited a high school (especially a poor one) would think that anything anyone there did was politically motivated. Hell, you'd probably get bashed for even mentioning some of those complex words for being a braniac.
Most of them are kids, who are letting out their general anger - at the police, at the system, at everything that went wrong in their lives.
That they are communicating on cell phones...well, show me someone who isn't communicating with cell phones, then we'll talk more.

So I am very disappointed with the way Sarkozy has handled this, and I think he needs to step down - someone's head will have to roll, if only as a sacrifice to the masses.
They should simply shut this down: Send in the military, let a few Leclercs roll up there and you'll see that most of the kids would rather stay home than risk being shot at with an assault rifle, or a MBT Cannon. They should've done it a week ago, but for whatever reason they didn't.

That's more or less what I think, too. Thanks for saving me the time to type that in. :)

Seems like they need a better riot police.

BTW, would you consider the yearly riots on 1st May in Berlin to be political motivated?

That's more or less what I think, too. Thanks for saving me the time to type that in. :)

Seems like they need a better riot police.
Seconded.
Although: revolutions in Germany don't count. In 1918, Socialist rioters decided to occupy a railway station (in Berlin, was it?). They all got there, and they all payed the addmition fee for getting into the station. Priceless!
(I'm joking. Although it seems to have happened, I don't draw conclusions from it that will contradict Leonstein. BTW: Leonstein, how did you manage a new 500 posts? You're prolific!)

Chirac has been privatizing and "freeing" the financial market since he is in power (the latest step being the privitizing of the largest electricity supplier in the world - EDF). He has also suppressed a lot of social housing and has lowered taxed consistentlly. That is what the people are sick about. They want social justice and less repressive police.

The police don't even carry real guns - they have flashball guns (essentially a two barreled gun that shoots raquetballs. How is that repressive?

No wonder the rioters can do whatever they like - the police are essentially powerless to stop them.

That they are communicating on cell phones...well, show me someone who isn't communicating with cell phones, then we'll talk more.

*Waves sledgehammer with a cry of "Smash the loom!"*

For anyone who didn't get that I'm the worst luddite in the world when it comes to mobile phones. Everyone else has one though...

BTW, would you consider the yearly riots on 1st May in Berlin to be political motivated?

yes, we ARE politically motivated :D

But that was in Baghdad, with a genuinely angry mob who had just witnessed their jail being destroyed by a few Brits saving their own guys from Iraqi Justice.
Um, I'm not thinking of any incident anywhere in Iraq. Remember the Arab thugs in Israel's occupied territories, throwing a soldier's dismembered body out of a second-story window as people inside raised their bloodied hands for the cameras?

That's the "wrong turn" incident I mentioned. Just a couple of reservists trying to get home, who made a wrong turn and ended up in a neighborhood where nobody had either the human sympathy or the balls to stand up for the right of people not to get torn limb from limb.

As for Jews in the British Isles getting persecuted, I am not surprised - but the European continent has never been even relatively free of anti-semitism, while in Britain, the ruler at the time (Cromwell?) suggested that Jews should be invited back to Britain.

I guess everyone needs somebody to hate, and from the Iberian peninsula to the Urals, one group of people was conspicuous enough to get the role of scapegoat. Too bad we don't have real scapegoats these days, sent out into the desert as sacrifices to appease the forces of divine evil. (OT, I know, but Bible study is fun!)

You....moron.
You have pretty much described the political system of all democratic countries.
Except for 1c. We have 'votes of no-confidence' in our respective Parliaments.

Bet you don't own a passport do you?

Let us be accurate here.

There is no "no confidence" vote for the US President. Impeachment is the equivalent of an indictment - not a vote of no confidence.

Last thing I read in Yahoo! was that the riots had spread to 300 towns. This sounds more widespread than just a couple slums. I'd say the French have a real problem on their hands.

To put it in a local context, it sounds as if all of Metro Atlanta was rioting. That's the city and all the surrounding counties.

Does anyone here see any similarity between current events and the book The Camp of the Saints?

Last thing I read in Yahoo! was that the riots had spread to 300 towns. This sounds more widespread than just a couple slums. I'd say the French have a real problem on their hands.

To put it in a local context, it sounds as if all of Metro Atlanta was rioting. That's the city and all the surrounding counties.

Nice isn't exactly the suburb of Paris, and they have the problem there now. It would be more like all of Georgia having the problem.

Maybe France should just stop letting immigrants in unless it has enough jobs to give them a shot in hell at not living in poverty from now on. I'm sure they're crowded enough anyways.


Also, yeah, how the hell is it that these people can afford cell phones if they're so poor. Wtf? I can't afford a cell phone and I'm not rioting. Stupid spoiled kids probably just want to destroy some shit because their parents wouldn't give them a car too.

I understand that in many circles mere criticising of Israeli policy can lead to such allegations, but seriously, if you are going to say that Europeans are all Nazis, then feel free - but please do back it up.
You said it yourself - "in some circles". Those circles are not (with a handful of exceptions) here.

You provoke Godwin only by suggesting that genocide or eugenic programs are desireable. Suggesting that a particular country's government may be making a repeated series of bad moves doesn't show hatred for the ethnicity of those people.

You are right that Britain's lower proportion of Jews means less opportunity for them to be harassed by the populace, but it doesn't explain the difference in government's actual treatment. Muslim gangsters beat Jewish citizens up and torch synagogues? No need to investigate, say police. The local police are answerable to the city, presumably, which is answerable to the provincial(?) and national governments. The actions of the local police reflect the policy climate throughout government.

It's just like the way if a white kid gets kidnapped here, all hell breaks loose; but if a black kid gets kidnapped, nobody seems to care, and law enforcement doesn't turn out in force to solve the case. But that's a story for a different thread. ;)

Riot police hurt by shots as France vows order will be restored (http://www.afp.com/english/news/stories/051106235810.lcmmq3rv.html)


Local youngsters expected more violence on the outskirts of Evreux.

"It's civil war now," said one in a hooded top.

This is just the type of civil situation that people like Bin Laden and his ilk seek to encourage. Has anyone facts about religious breakdown of rioters? It might be interesting to see. But promise an unhappy teen the chance to shoot RPGs at police and you really have a problem. I hope France doesn't get so mired in the riot put-down that incomming shipping containers are ignored cause they will be filled with terrorists and weapons for those who wish to shoot an AK-47.:(

In 1973, the French novelist Jean Raspail artfully predicted in the form of fiction the very real Palestinian-style intifada that now rages on the west bank of Europe: France. Ten years after the book's publication, Raspail described the "vision" he had, portrayed in the book, which lasted for ten feverish months:

"They were there! A million poor wretches, armed only with their weakness and their numbers, overwhelmed by misery, encumbered with starving brown and black children, ready to disembark on our soil, the vanguard of the multititudes pressing hard against every part of the tired and overfed West. I literally saw them, saw the major problem they presented, a problem absolutely insoluble by our present moral standards. To let them in would destroy us. To reject them would destroy them."

Raspail first published this haunting and apocalyptic novel, Le Camp Des Saints (The Camp of the Saints) in France. In 1975, it was published in America, where it was compared to Camus's The Plague and to Swift's Gulliver’s Travels. The book imagines a flotilla of millions of immigrants traveling from the Ganges to France. The similarities between the fictional France of the novel and the France of today are easy to spot.

Consider the plot. An all-powerful, multi-culturalist intelligentsia, having taught France that it must atone for its racist crimes, swiftly joins compassionate French Christians in ecstatically welcoming the mass invasion that brutally destroys France. The solicitude of white Frenchmen—the priests, intellectuals, student activists, and prostitutes who wish to embrace and assist the implacably angry new arrivals—is repaid by death. And terror: The immigrants loot everything in sight. They murder for new apartments. France is run into the ground. Raw and relentless, the novel is as brilliant as Orwell’s 1984.

Raspail dares to ask the hard questions: Are we our brothers' keepers? Must the West share all its resources with a barbarous East—even if it means our own demise? Can Europe and the West redeem themselves by becoming as impoverished as those they once colonized? What will be the consequences for France should it welcome profoundly hostile immigrants who do not wish to assimilate and whose own cultural and religious practices sanction violence, illiteracy, and gender and religious apartheid?

At the time Raspail published this book, he stood alone. Sympathy was very much on the "victim's" side. Europe could no longer save the Jews—they were all murdered or gone. Instead, beginning with France, Europe could save itself by saving "victims" from elsewhere, especially those whom France had previously colonized and who were also French citizens. Indeed, the less sympathy one had for France, the more entitled one was to "victim" status. The inverse held true: Many Algerians who had fought for France in the Algerian war of independence and moved "home" to Paris, found themselves unwanted.

Sympathy for victim-uprisings was gathering great force in the world. Students rioted in Paris in May of '68, and inspired other such riots all over Europe and North America. Revolution was in the air, and many whites viewed it as their own redemption and as the death of Western rot.

Against this backdrop, imagine how Raspail's work was received in certain quarters. He was accused of being a racist and a fascist. In 1982, in an epilogue to one edition of the book, Raspail recalled the wrath he had incurred: "What I was saying was terrible. I waited patiently to be burnt at the stake."

As time went on, however, French leaders and thinkers began to read his work—secretly to be sure. According to Raspail, "When it finally became apparent that in the future the denial of essential and basic human differences would work solely to the detriment of our own integrity....I, the accursed writer, was transformed into a prophetic writer."

Two realities remain especially curious. First, even Raspail did not dare portray the dreaded immigrant invaders as Muslims. But this omission ignores the fact that, in stark contrast to many Muslims in the East and West, many non-white immigrants, such as Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists, Chinese, Vietnamese, African and Caribbean Christians, are neither inclined to violence nor averse to assimilation. Not all Muslims are rioters; but most rioters are Muslims.

Second, no one in various intellectual and political circles seems to have read Raspail's book. In fact, no one who is now leading the fight against the Islamization of Europe seems to know about it either. One reason may be that the politically correct have censored this crucial conversation. While Raspail was initially published by Scribners, a major American publisher, the subsequent American editions of his novel devolved to a series of four different and smaller presses: first, Grosset and Dunlop, then the Institute for Western Values, followed by the American Immigration Control Foundation. The 1995 edition was published by the relatively obscure Social Contract Press of Petoskey, Michigan.

Like so many prophets—Jeremiah and Cassandra come to mind—Raspail saw what was coming, but he was powerless to prevent it. He was mocked and scorned, then grudgingly acknowledged. But his challenge has not been heeded. Some admirers of the book have embraced it as science fiction. I suggest that its true genre is that of prophecy and that Raspail's "vision" has come true in our lifetime.

Meh. despite my attempts, my uni didn't want to offer them...

I was merely addressing the unsubstantiated assertion that Europeans are anti-semitic because of something that happened 60 years ago.
Nothing particular against Britain, I just thought I'd be a little more creative in my rebuttal to always the same tired stabbing.
I understand that in many circles mere criticising of Israeli policy can lead to such allegations, but seriously, if you are going to say that Europeans are all Nazis, then feel free - but please do back it up.

As for Britain and the Jews, here is a brief history. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_England It might also be noted that there always seemed to be a smaller percentage of Jews living in England than for example in Germany - maybe that was part of the reason for why progroms and other violence wasn't quite as frequent.

I am well aware of the history of the jews in England thank you. And the fact remains for what ever reason, England has never displayed the type of systemic anti-semitism that the rest of the continent has. I don't know why but there it is.

I know you blame the English for everything bad that has happened in European history and like to point out any little fault - perceived or otherwise - that they have. Sometimes you just go to far. Especially as you seem to think that everyone else is always a victim of circumstances.

I am well aware of the history of the jews in England thank you. And the fact remains for what ever reason, England has never displayed the type of systemic anti-semitism that the rest of the continent has. I don't know why but there it is.

I know you blame the English for everything bad that has happened in European history and like to point out any little fault - perceived or otherwise - that they have. Sometimes you just go to far. Especially as you seem to think that everyone else is always a victim of circumstances.

If it hadn't been for groups in England that felt for the Jews, the current state of Israel would not exist.

According to the latest reports the attacks have expanded outside of France to Belgium and possibly Germany.
The majority of the youths are muslims though I don't know the affiliations of the rest. Again, I maintain that this is a direct result of the unfair and racist manner in which the french have treated their musim minorities.
History has shown repeatedly that no matter who you are or how culturally superior you think you are, if you oppress people they will rise against you.
The riots in the US, such LA 92 and more recently the one in Ohio were no near the level of what is happening in France right now. None of the blacks in those riots ever called for the overthrow of the American system of government. And at the moment, it seems the riots won't stop until an official or perhaps all the officials of the French government step down.
If you don't believe these people mean revolution just read the words of the kid who was qouted by MSN who said "This is civil war."

According to the latest reports the attacks have expanded outside of France to Belgium and possibly Germany.
So what? They're still smaller than LA. (hehehe)
The majority of the youths are muslims though I don't know the affiliations of the rest. Again, I maintain that this is a direct result of the unfair and racist manner in which the french have treated their musim minorities.
Ah... so?
The riots in the US, such LA 92 and more recently the one in Ohio were no near the level of what is happening in France right now.
How do you figure?
None of the blacks in those riots ever called for the overthrow of the American system of government. And at the moment, it seems the riots won't stop until an official or perhaps all the officials of the French government step down.
Ever heard of Malcolm X? And why would you say they are "against the system of gvt."? Just because some of them are against the gvt. in place? You're confusing current executive and executive branch. Bravo!

But I would really love to hear a reply about how the US is/are the only democracy around.

So what? They're still smaller than LA. (hehehe)

Ah... so?

How do you figure?

Ever heard of Malcolm X? And why would you say they are "against the system of gvt."? Just because some of them are against the gvt. in place? You're confusing current executive and executive branch. Bravo!

But I would really love to hear a reply about how the US is/are the only democracy around.

1. No. They are now bigger than the LA riots.

2. Pointing out that the riots are the result of the French governments unfair, unjust, and racist policies.

3. The LA riots were spontaneous and truly uncordinated. We did not have government officials calling the rioters "scum" and promising to "clear out" whole neighborhoods. In the LA riots no one claimed it was a civil war. Not the case in France where the rioters have stated they believe themselves to be at war with the government. Plus, in the LA riots, unlike the current France riots, no one attacked medical personnel or burned down nursery schools.

4. Malcolm X, despite what you might have heard in the movies, never started a riot with the goal of overthrowing the US government. The goal of the french rioters seems to be the ouster of the French government.

From your last bit, it sounds like you're now trying to blame Bush for what's happening in France.

This is not a religious issue. It looks like british/american medias are seeking to find their own problem in french riots. No rioter has talked about islam. They all talk about Sarkozy who should resign.

1. No. They are now bigger than the LA riots.

But they are in THREE countries, not one American administrative division (and a huge one, for that).

2. Pointing out that the riots are the result of the French governments unfair, unjust, and racist policies.

Not racist. Incompetent and with nationalist overtones at times. Nationalism does not eqal racism: it is the assumption of an existing French identity that is threatened by what is percieved as too much competition. Now, whatever we BOTH think about that attitude, it was shared and demanded by the French public on several occasions (inform yourself about Le Pen's past electoral succes).

3. The LA riots were spontaneous and truly uncordinated. We did not have government officials calling the rioters "scum" and promising to "clear out" whole neighborhoods. In the LA riots no one claimed it was a civil war. Not the case in France where the rioters have stated they believe themselves to be at war with the government. Plus, in the LA riots, unlike the current France riots, no one attacked medical personnel or burned down nursery schools.

You're reducing it to one paradigm. No two violent events can be exactly alike. Admit it, however: any gvt. deals with this sort of stuff, and many times they are overwhelmed, BECAUSE they can be incompetent (French authorities, and American, and Moldavian or Comoran). The LA riots where started by such incompetence as "calling them 'scum' ".

4. Malcolm X, despite what you might have heard in the movies, never started a riot with the goal of overthrowing the US government. The goal of the french rioters seems to be the ouster of the French government.

He never started a riot on this scale. But wasn't he into overthrowing the US gvt.? Weren't people who DID riot on this scale inspired by his ideology and other such? Where they Jeffersonian or Neo-Liberals?
I don't get my info from movies: I don't want to step on that turf of yours.

From your last bit, it sounds like you're now trying to blame Bush for what's happening in France.

No. I'm trying to figure what you meant in post 272 (also see my original reply - post 274).

It seems the socialist policy of handing out free money doesnt work . It seems people actually need real skills and a sense of accomplishment and self worth . They also need a sense of belonging to a society and the knowlage that they are fairly represented in that society. All these things are missing in France amongst the people the rioters come from . After they put a lid on the rioting , eventually they will have to address the racism and government policy that helped contribute to this mess . The more I look into it the more I do not understand the French .

Socialism isn't necessarily about handing out free money, it's a system for reaching a goal: making sure that everyone has access to the basic necessities of human life like food, housing, breathable air, that kind of stuff, regardless of how poor he is.

Can it be done wrong? Yes, hell yes. Is socialism itself flawed as a plan to reach the goal I mentioned? I think it is.

But let's also note that in the US, we don't even pretend to have such a goal. We (as the American political body, not as individuals) happily cut benefits to the poor and disabled without increasing our private charity. It's primarily because we aren't them, but also because we haven't outgrown the belief that the disabled are parasites upon the body politic. (The AES and other such organizations promoted this view very strongly.) Maybe, while we condemn the French for poor implementation of their utopian dream, we should stop to consider about how their dreams and ours stack up.

But let's also note that in the US, we don't even pretend to have such a goal. We (as the American political body, not as individuals) happily cut benefits to the poor and disabled without increasing our private charity. It's primarily because we aren't them, but also because we haven't outgrown the belief that the disabled are parasites upon the body politic. (The AES and other such organizations promoted this view very strongly.) Maybe, while we condemn the French for poor implementation of their utopian dream, we should stop to consider about how their dreams and ours stack up.
Forget the rest of the post: this, I can totally agree with.

But let's also note that in the US, we don't even pretend to have such a goal.

The Democratic Party claims to have such a goal, and was the idea engine and the votes behind the programs that condemned people to live for generations in massive public housing projects that did nothing except breed crime and hopelessness.

The Democratic Party claims to have such a goal, and was the idea engine and the votes behind the programs that condemned people to live for generations in massive public housing projects that did nothing except breed crime and hopelessness.
The Democrats aren't representative of the US body politic now, though. Even if they were, I would suggest they stand for an odd mix of socialism, political and economic(!) freedom, and the right to determine your own morality. In just the same way, the Republican party seems to stand for an odd mix of authoritarianism, small government, militarism and the right to impose a standard of morality on everyone else. Amusingly enough, each party's stance is inherently self-contradictory.

Both parties are completely lost from any chance at finding this goal, to say nothing of the Libertarian party, which seems to explicitly reject it.

The Democrats aren't representative of the US body politic now, though. Even if they were, I would suggest they stand for an odd mix of socialism, political and economic(!) freedom, and the right to determine your own morality. In just the same way, the Republican party seems to stand for an odd mix of authoritarianism, small government, militarism and the right to impose a standard of morality on everyone else. Amusingly enough, each party's stance is inherently self-contradictory.

Both parties are completely lost from any chance at finding this goal, to say nothing of the Libertarian party, which seems to explicitly reject it.

No, both the Democrats and Republicans want to restrict your choices in life - it's just a matter of which choices you want. And this is where they are the most contradictory. One might imagine a party would either want to restrict your choices, or not restrict them. Neither can get off of making drugs illegal, one wants to liberalize abortion and the other liberalizes guns. One wants to turn the workplace into a temple of politically correct speech and behavior, and the other wants to cover up breasts on statues and TV.

The attractive thing about libertarianism is that there's this inherent idea that I will be left alone in most matters. No thanks, I don't want the government to help me in anything, and I don't want them to take away or forbid anything that I do as long as I'm not harming anyone.

Both the Democratic Party and Republican Party seem to be based on Lenin's idea that the Party knows what's good for you, and each individual voter is a clueless idiot.

Socialism as an ideal is never wrong. In fact, no ideal is EVER wrong (including the extremes like fascism or communism). The only thing that is ever wrong is how the ideal is implemented in practice, and then how it becomes precedent and every other state follows suit. Russia was never truly communist, but every right-winger cites it as reason not to give in to the left wing. In this case, the french socialist system tried to compromise with the right wing nationalist tendencies, with the result that not enough empthasis was given to the rehabilitation of non-nationals, and as such dissent was bred against the government. The solution? There probably isnt one, unless they take over the country, thus fermenting dissent in the displaced french, and so on. No governemnt is perfect, it is all about compromise, and providing for the present and future. The french forgot about the last bit - just hope the other countries take note!

No thanks, I don't want the government to help me in anything
Put yourself in the shoes of someone who cannot work and who is running out of money to pay for the medical services that keep you alive, or at least sane enough to be on the same planet as everyone else. Your answer might change, then.

Edit: Socialism isn't an ideal, it's a political movement to establish a particular system that hopefully will bring about that ideal state of existence.

The ideal that socialists hold is a worthy one. I share it. However, it is possible to hold to a socialist ideal without being a socialist, to say nothing of a Socialist.

No, ideals are rarely "wrong", but movements to achieve them certainly can be.

Put yourself in the shoes of someone who cannot work and who is running out of money to pay for the medical services that keep you alive, or at least sane enough to be on the same planet as everyone else. Your answer might change, then.

I feel that a certain minimum amount of social welfare is a necessity.

But just because you're spending money on social welfare, as I have pointed out in this thread, doesn't mean you're actually helping anyone.

In the case of the US, spending money on masssive public housing projects got us the same result (beginning in the 1960s) that the French are experiencing now - they followed the same formula.

It can very well be a disaster.

Not racist. Incompetent and with nationalist overtones at times. Nationalism does not eqal racism: it is the assumption of an existing French identity that is threatened by what is percieved as too much competition. Now, whatever we BOTH think about that attitude, it was shared and demanded by the French public on several occasions (inform yourself about Le Pen's past electoral succes).


Do you not think it short sighted to suggest nationalism cannot equate racism? Most racism stems from radical nationalism... I would not say France (as much of the rest of europe) is free from this reality. Just as Katrina put a spot light on poverty, so this incident serves to spot light Europes growing racial unrest.

Do you not think it short sighted to suggest nationalism cannot equate racism? Most racism stems from radical nationalism... I would not say France (as much of the rest of europe) is free from this reality. Just as Katrina put a spot light on poverty, so this incident serves to spot light Europes growing racial unrest.

So I guess that's why the French media were quick to point out how lame the US was and how they are above such problems?

But just because you're spending money on social welfare, as I have pointed out in this thread, doesn't mean you're actually helping anyone.
Hah!

I misunderstood you. I agree with you, so I'm not sure what I was arguing with you about.

Hah!

I misunderstood you. I agree with you, so I'm not sure what I was arguing with you about.

Think of me as 90 percent libertarian, with the 10 percent remaining to pay for national defense, limited social welfare, and limited policing.

Socialism as an ideal is never wrong. In fact, no ideal is EVER wrong (including the extremes like fascism or communism).

1 : existing as an archetypal idea - Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2002

The ideal of something like slavery or nazism (The ideology and practice of the Nazis, especially the policy of racist nationalism,... The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language) isn't wrong?

Here's an interesting take on the French situation:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22369-1861902,00.html

BTW, would you consider the yearly riots on 1st May in Berlin to be political motivated?
Not really, it's not like they actually demand anything, or actually try to achieve anything other than to make a name for themselves.

I am well aware of the history of the jews in England thank you. And the fact remains for what ever reason, England has never displayed the type of systemic anti-semitism that the rest of the continent has. I don't know why but there it is.
But that's not true! I agree with most of your post here, but despite Cromwell's peculiar (or not so...?) view of religion as a political tool - fact remains that Jews were actually not allowed in England for many years before he reversed that rule.

I know you blame the English for everything bad that has happened in European history and like to point out any little fault - perceived or otherwise - that they have. Sometimes you just go to far. Especially as you seem to think that everyone else is always a victim of circumstances.
As I said above, I wasn't bagging England in my response, I was merely bagging the use of the word "continental" as part of an offensive assertion and generalisation. Fact of the matter is that England had anti-semitism and the Puritans who went to America weren't particularly pro-Jewish either. Does it matter today? No! Just like the Holocaust doesn't matter today, and shouldn't be brought up in a matter like this.
If one wants to talk about the French response to anti-semitism, one can do that of course, but one needs to stick to the matter at hand, and not extrapolate needlessly and wrongly.

Muslim gangsters beat Jewish citizens up and torch synagogues? No need to investigate, say police. The local police are answerable to the city, presumably, which is answerable to the provincial(?) and national governments. The actions of the local police reflect the policy climate throughout government.
It does, and the idea that you wouldn't investigate it is a problem. However, I don't know the exact circumstances of the case, and so I can't really comment on the French response to it. I'd be pretty sure that they would've quoted some reason other than "they're just Jews" (and that reason would have to stand up to scrutiny).

It's just like the way if a white kid gets kidnapped here, all hell breaks loose; but if a black kid gets kidnapped, nobody seems to care, and law enforcement doesn't turn out in force to solve the case. But that's a story for a different thread. ;)
Actually I am quite disgusted with how immigrants are treated in Europe sometimes...I am a fan of integration, but not of assimilation. It's not only a matter of providing immigrants with a knowledge about French culture, life and language, but also about teaching the French themselves about others.
Fact of the matter is that Europe is changing into something completely different, and Muslims and their culture will play a large part in that future Europe. The idea is to direct that change in a way that allows the traditional European values to remain viable.

According to the latest reports the attacks have expanded outside of France to Belgium and possibly Germany.
Wouldn't surprise me - although a link would be nice. I can imagine what the mood is like in HH Mümmelmannsberg or Jenfeld or in Berlin Tempelhof-Schöneberg right now...
Problem is that right now I don't think in Germany the use of the Bundeswehr for domestic purposes is actually constitutional.

None of the blacks in those riots ever called for the overthrow of the American system of government.
And I still haven't actually heard any kind of demands or even political statement from the rioters now...in fact, there isn't actually a leadership at all, is there. If there is, it's been rather successful in keeping a low profile.

And at the moment, it seems the riots won't stop until an official or perhaps all the officials of the French government step down.
I'm not convinced that anyone stepping down now would end the riots. I would imagine that if anyone steps down (and it should be only Sarkozy) it will be as an apology to the rest of France (the vast, vast majority of people) which has nothing to do with this but has to look at it nonetheless. It's an embarrassment, and such a thing requires people to get removed, no matter whether it is the handling of a hurricane, an intel leak or out-of-control riots.

If you don't believe these people mean revolution just read the words of the kid who was qouted by MSN who said "This is civil war."
Note the word "kid"...unless he has any sort of political agenda, there is no value in his statement.

Here's an interesting take on the French situation:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22369-1861902,00.html
Single best article I have read about this so far: Good on him!
And you for posting it. :)

What's with the surrender talk again?
Show me the nation on the planet that didn't surrender itself, or had at least parts of its forces surrender. When you lost, you give up - that simple. No one is making fun for the Confederacy for surrendering once they lost.
No one is making fun of the US forces on the Phillipines for giving themselves up to the Japanese.

Shit happens, and you people need to get over it.
Actually people do make fun of Confederacy for surrendering. Which is why it is funny that they say "The South shall rise again". The person who surrenders always vows to try again (on Superhero comics).

Wouldn't surprise me - although a link would be nice. I can imagine what the mood is like in HH Mümmelmannsberg or Jenfeld or in Berlin Tempelhof-Schöneberg right now...
Problem is that right now I don't think in Germany the use of the Bundeswehr for domestic purposes is actually constitutional.

There's not much going on and most of it is discussed in a different thread here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=452865).

I hope the rioters/revolutionaries triumph and spread into amerika as we need a change. Finally, the french do something good:D

This is not a religious issue. It looks like british/american medias are seeking to find their own problem in french riots. No rioter has talked about islam. They all talk about Sarkozy who should resign.


Funny that the leaders of the rioters should be spoken of as "emirs" then. :p

http://fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/2005/11/do-you-hear-people-sing.html

But here's something on a lighter note! ^_~

http://muttawa.blogspot.com/2005_11_01_muttawa_archive.html#113126767844142075

I hope the rioters/revolutionaries triumph and spread into amerika as we need a change. Finally, the french do something good:D

Unlike the French, we can put down a riot.

Unlike the French, we can put down a riot.
Well you do have experience...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_riots#20th_century

Well you do have experience...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_riots#20th_century

What can I say? We love to riot. Hence why we know how to put them down.

Not to mention, the Governor mostly, calls in the national guard when the police can't stop it.

What can I say? We love to riot. Hence why we know how to put them down.

Not to mention, the Governor mostly, calls in the national guard when the police can't stop it.

Tsk, Ye yanks are nothing compared to Northern Ireland. I know they were looking at France thinking "amateurs".

Tsk, Ye yanks are nothing compared to Northern Ireland. I know they were looking at France thinking "amateurs".

Meh even I think the French are Amateurs. LOL!!

Indeed. A mere ten days of rioting would barely make the sports pages.

Indeed. A mere ten days of rioting would barely make the sports pages.

Even if it is a riot at Penn State :D

Okay, okay... everything else aside, there are only two true ways of intelligently ridding the Republic of France, as well as the world, of this rioting nonsense. Instead of using fucking dumbass and inefficient diplomatic methods, we should do one of these:
- Suspend all of the human and civil rights of any person or group of people (say 40+ people) while they are rioting and execute them immediately with either automatic machine guns or wide-range explosives.
- Suspend all of the human and civil rights of any person or group of people rioting, round them all up and incarcerate them all until the rioting stops. Then place them all on an uninhabited, remote island and drop multiple tactical and strategic nuclear weapons onto the island (specifically positioned to minimalize fallout) and broadcast their death's live on Television! That would be some crispy and pleasing entertainment, considering none of them deserve the privledge of living and are all unworthy of breathing any of our oxygen.

Am.....Ok, But what if you didn't want any state-sponsored murders?

In order of importance:
Republic (country, state, whatever)
Politicians serving the above
Elite nominating the politicians
Middle-upper-middle class legitimizing the above caste
The rest


I'm sorry, but how on Dogs green Earth can you lot defend not rebelling against that?!
The republic exists because there is a people, the politicians exist to represent ALL those people, the middle class exists to further capitalism, and the rest exists to make all the formerly mentioned have something to govern (and a place to live without getting decapitated for being utter bastards).

So what in bloody hell is so surprising about France?

http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article325453.ece

They're doing curfews now...about time. :rolleyes:

http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article325453.ece

They're doing curfews now...about time. :rolleyes:

Better late than never I suppose.

In order of importance:
Republic (country, state, whatever)
Politicians serving the above
Elite nominating the politicians
Middle-upper-middle class legitimizing the above caste
The rest


I'm sorry, but how on Dogs green Earth can you lot defend not rebelling against that?!
The republic exists because there is a people, the politicians exist to represent ALL those people, the middle class exists to further capitalism, and the rest exists to make all the formerly mentioned have something to govern (and a place to live without getting decapitated for being utter bastards).

So what in bloody hell is so surprising about France?

I'm sorry. Theres a difference between genuine political unrest and rowdy youth setting a crippled woman on fire. When shit like that happens it makes it hard for me to take it seriously as, "a rebellion against the capitalist Republic." Which is silly anyways since France is a socialist welfare state. (which is part of the problem; i.e. sticking people in state funded slums)

http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article325453.ece

They're doing curfews now...about time. :rolleyes:

When a whole city is in chaos and the police lack the proper authority (no guns) to enforce it how much good will it do?

When a whole city is in chaos and the police lack the proper authority (no guns) to enforce it how much good will it do?
They do have guns, rest assured, they just didn't want to use them until now. Once they get to the stage where they say "Enough is Enough!" there's plenty enough firepower on hand.

It's part of my belief in the democratic constitutional state that ultimately the state has to be ready to use force when it comes to protecting the rights of its citizens - and this minority of rowdies are clearly hurting France as a whole.

http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article325453.ece

They're doing curfews now...about time. :rolleyes:

Gallic genius in action! The clarion call of "Bedtime!" will surely bring the Molotov coctail throwing whackoes to their knees!

Do you not think it short sighted to suggest nationalism cannot equate racism? Most racism stems from radical nationalism... I would not say France (as much of the rest of europe) is free from this reality.
I did not say it doesn't. Here's what I mean:
- bigotry in France would not be directed at "whatever is not Indo-European", but at "whatever is not French". Not for racial criteria, as much as it is for cultural ones. This is even more dangerous potentially, since it is an attitude that may stem from the left side of politics just as well.
- in some sense, it can develop as a "first to have gotten here" syndrome, in France and Europe at large. It doesn't matter if you're Black or Arab, as long as you're percieved as integrated. Both Le Pen and Pim Fortuyn surrounded themselves with minorities when they had the chance! Their discourse was even meant to co-iterest some people from immigrant communities (ie: those who had settled and were affraid of competition). Of course, this is not to say that they were right.

When a whole city is in chaos and the police lack the proper authority (no guns) to enforce it how much good will it do?They can nab people for going out after dark instead of having to wait for them to band together and start throwing rocks.

Well you do have experience...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_riots#20th_century

I can't believe it.

It seems half of the riots in the world took place in the USA!

Now, just a few words about the political situation in France. Sarkozy used to be very, very close to Chirac in the early nineties, his political son. But a short time before the presidential election, he betrayed and sided with another old good friend of Chirac: Balladur. This moved turned out to be a pretty bad one since Balladur lost and Chirac became president in 1995. Every one who had sided with Balladur was put aside for a time.
At the 2002 presidential election, Sarkozy worked very hard to come back (he was seen everywhere) and made it to the governement. As Number 2 (Prime Minister being Raffarin). He should have been the prime minister but Chirac had still not forgiven (and he never will I guess). Sarkozy was interior minister and had a very communicative attitude, he was on tv every other day. And he earned a great popular support despite Chirac's effort to tackle him down.
For a while Sarkozy had to leave the governement (to become president of the right wing party). But he came back (interior again).
Now De Villepin is prime minister. He is the one Chirac wants to be the next president (election in 2007). But Sarkozy has a greater popular support.
When the riots aroused, Chirac and Villepin did nothing to help Sarkozy. In fact, they even got another minister to tell that what Sarkozy was doing was an error.
So now that the situation has got a bit too far, Chirac and Villepin have to come back in the game and I believe that by the end of the week everything will be in order.
If I've explained all this, it was just to explain why Sarkozy could not resign. Because he is the most likely next president, and it would mean he has failed in his job. Furthermore, if he resigns, it would mean that violence is a way to be heard which cannot be accepted.

Maykoy

PS: as a side note, I personaly very much dislike Sarkozy (my post could have made it thought otherwise)

They are scum. They arent peacefully protesting to make a point and get attention. They are wilding for the sake of excitement.
I saw this first hand in LA after the Rodney King bullshit. Half the scumbags destroying property and looting were only doing so because they felt they could get away with it.
They do need to be pressure washed away. I guess the free housing and handouts make people bored. So they act like animals. Mayeb the government should be responsible to entertain them too.
I suggest you read a bit about history. American history. Perhaps start with our own Revolution (http://www.harlingen.isd.tenet.edu/coakhist/amrev.html).

We had Stamp Act riots. We threatened and beat British government workers. We had a rather daring Tea Party which we felt was quite justifiable and entirely illegal.

It shocked the British! Simply shocked them! The poor tax collector was just doing his -- urhg!!! *pummel pummel, tar and feather*

America began as a nation born in a riot, with looting to boot.

Remember the wry words of Dr. Ben Franklin, as given in 1776:

A rebellion is always legal in the first person, such as "our rebellion." It is only in the third person - "their rebellion" - that it becomes illegal.

The Algerian-descendent people of France are in great numbers French citizens. A percentage of them are more recent immigrants.

But they have been coming to that nation for the better part of a century.

Much the same way that, say, people of the newly-born United States had been coming over to that land for a century before we had our own Revolution. 1664 the British took New Amsterdam from the Dutch and called it New York. 1776, and it revolts. Imagine that?

Heck, weren't those that landed at Plymouth Rock angry religious zealots seeking a separatist movement from their repressive government? Didn't they seek to wear odd clothing and hold to separate religious devotions?

How dare these Muslim people demand to wear hijab!!

They were all British citizens weren't they? After all that the mother country had done for them, this was the thanks they get?

Rabble! Hooligans! Criminals! Send in the Red Coats! Finest soldiers in the world! That'll show them. (nod sagely)

Now, look at Algerian-descendent people in France. Many of them (or their fathers, or mother, or grandfathers or grandmothers) came to France because it was the only way to stay alive. Some of them came for better economic opportunity than you'd find in Algeria.

However, often they were shut out of that chance.

The government has been treating them with oddly segregationist policies. A bastardized result from true cosmopolitan social humanitarian desires and crass cynical xenophobic undercuttings of those programs.

"We want you to live here happily and peacefully, but pardon us while we officially treat you like dirt."

Not that the United States would ever stoop to gutting a domestic social program meant to protect the rights and improve the economic opportunities of long-repressed minorities. I mean, that just doesn't happen in the land of the free, does it?

300 cities in France have suffered riots so far. Think about that.

More violence due to unrest and rebellion than they have suffered since World War II.

That's not just Trick or Treat for Halloween. People just don't decide, "Hey, you know, I always did want to know what it felt like to burn down a Nursery school at the end of my block."

Psychology and mass mob mentality like that must be rooted in deep frustrations pent up over years and decades. Not that the young people committing the crimes have been alive for anywhere near the majority of the years of these problems. But they are the children of parents who gave less of a civics lesson to their children, because their parents found the civics lessons they got were hollow, etc.

There's a societal feedback loop which breaks down over generations. The same way in the US, chronic poverty and high rates of crime in certain neighborhoods led to riots, whether in New York City, Newark, Chicago, New Orleans, or Los Angeles. It also appears that the closer you might live to incredible wealthy neighborhoods, and yet find yourself unwelcome and policed harshly, the more likely you might be to feel that you are being treated a tad, oh, badly. Shut out. Shut down.

While the death of two boys -- fleeing because they had committed property crimes -- was the flashpoint, the episode that began the riots, the condition for that lit match to set off a powder keg was made in the gunpowder of years of frustration.

Just as for us, an unruly mob accosting and berating a British sentry was disbursed by a squad of British soldiers -- which became the Boston Massacre that led to the Revolution.

For us, it was justified and high-minded to break the law to complain about our taxes and lack of rights. To bully and threaten to get our own way to a free and independent nation. But for the repressed Algerians to do it, it's patently dismissible thuggery?

I don't like rioting. I generally don't condone violence to get your way.

I also think that not all the people of France are xenophobes.

Just as America has its xenophobes and cosmopolitans -- and we argue regularly about issues -- France too has a mix of those who sincerely hold no malice towards Algerian-descendent persons, and those who are quite small-minded and racially bigotted.

Yet any American that says that civil riot and violence should be thwarted by repressive government violence in response -- regardless of the possibly-justified reason that began the riot -- is a living, walking, fat-headed hypocritical idiot.

Your very social right to free speech came about because people protested, rioted, got shot or shot at, or shot or shot at someone themselves, and then fought a multi-year bloody war to secure the right for you to express your pompous and ignorant buffoonery.

If the Algerians are rioting, it might behoove people to find out why, and see whether there can be legal, peaceful redress of grievances.

You know who defended the soldiers who shot the mob in Boston at that Boston Massacre?

John Adams.

Yes, he wanted American independence. He felt the British regime had unlawfully taxed America over and over again.

But he was so dedicated to the ideals of law and justice that he did not want to see the cause of American independence shoaled by unmitigated mob mentality.

He and a pair of others working on the case actually got the British soldiers acquitted of charges.

Are these riots insane? Destroying the people's own neighborhoods and making their own lots worse off? Yes. Quite likely. Were the Rodney King riots insane? Did black people torch their own black communities and destroy their own black neighborhood mini-malls? Regretably, yes.

So what causes mass mobs in 300 cities to suddenly lose all sense of trust in civil and peaceful society such that they rise up in such violence?

Riddle me that, all you simple-minded goons and one-dimensional excuses for mentalities.

I challenge you all to do this: find out more about the issues before you give dime-store bargain-basement solutions to problems that have been bred over centuries.

Learn your own history, and stop with the asinine simple-minded rhetoric.

Show respect to all the parties in the conflict, or simply get ignored, or perhaps bask in your famous five minutes of infamy, rightfully scorned by those who have more depth of appreciation for what is occurring in the world. Ugly Americans. You disgust me.

We need to find the John Adams of the French-Algerian problem. We need to find those who can see there is an ideal law and justice that can be worked towards that is based in truth, and not prejudice. Minds that respect civil law and justice, but is also understand civil violence occurs when a people feel that it is their only way to express their deepest grievances.

When America forgets its roots, and what it did to secure its very liberties, is when we start sounding more and more like the imperialistic British that we wished to be free from in the first place. Just as they forgot how and why they threw off the yoke of tyranny that had required the Magna Carta to ensure their own legal protections.

At least no one has offered "let them eat cake."

(Maybe I haven't read far enough in this tripe-filled thread.)

I suggest you read a bit about history. American history. Perhaps start with our own Revolution (http://www.harlingen.isd.tenet.edu/coakhist/amrev.html).

We had Stamp Act riots. We threatened and beat British government workers. We had a rather daring Tea Party which we felt was quite justifiable and entirely illegal.

It shocked the British! Simply shocked them! The poor tax collector was just doing his -- urhg!!! *pummel pummel, tar and feather*

America began as a nation born in a riot, with looting to boot.

Remember the wry words of Dr. Ben Franklin, as given in 1776:



The Algerian-descendent people of France are in great numbers French citizens. A percentage of them are more recent immigrants.

But they have been coming to that nation for the better part of a century.

Much the same way that, say, people of the newly-born United States had been coming over to that land for a century before we had our own Revolution. 1664 the British took New Amsterdam from the Dutch and called it New York. 1776, and it revolts. Imagine that?

Heck, weren't those that landed at Plymouth Rock angry religious zealots seeking a separatist movement from their repressive government? Didn't they seek to wear odd clothing and hold to separate religious devotions?

How dare these Muslim people demand to wear hijab!!

They were all British citizens weren't they? After all that the mother country had done for them, this was the thanks they get?

Rabble! Hooligans! Criminals! Send in the Red Coats! Finest soldiers in the world! That'll show them. (nod sagely)

Now, look at Algerian-descendent people in France. Many of them (or their fathers, or mother, or grandfathers or grandmothers) came to France because it was the only way to stay alive. Some of them came for better economic opportunity than you'd find in Algeria.

However, often they were shut out of that chance.

The government has been treating them with oddly segregationist policies. A bastardized result from true cosmopolitan social humanitarian desires and crass cynical xenophobic undercuttings of those programs.

"We want you to live here happily and peacefully, but pardon us while we officially treat you like dirt."

Not that the United States would ever stoop to gutting a domestic social program meant to protect the rights and improve the economic opportunities of long-repressed minorities. I mean, that just doesn't happen in the land of the free, does it?

300 cities in France have suffered riots so far. Think about that.

More violence due to unrest and rebellion than they have suffered since World War II.

That's not just Trick or Treat for Halloween. People just don't decide, "Hey, you know, I always did want to know what it felt like to burn down a Nursery school at the end of my block."

Psychology and mass mob mentality like that must be rooted in deep frustrations pent up over years and decades. Not that the young people committing the crimes have been alive for anywhere near the majority of the years of these problems. But they are the children of parents who gave less of a civics lesson to their children, because their parents found the civics lessons they got were hollow, etc.

There's a societal feedback loop which breaks down over generations. The same way in the US, chronic poverty and high rates of crime in certain neighborhoods led to riots, whether in New York City, Newark, Chicago, New Orleans, or Los Angeles. It also appears that the closer you might live to incredible wealthy neighborhoods, and yet find yourself unwelcome and policed harshly, the more likely you might be to feel that you are being treated a tad, oh, badly. Shut out. Shut down.

While the death of two boys -- fleeing because they had committed property crimes -- was the flashpoint, the episode that began the riots, the condition for that lit match to set off a powder keg was made in the gunpowder of years of frustration.

Just as for us, an unruly mob accosting and berating a British sentry was disbursed by a squad of British soldiers -- which became the Boston Massacre that led to the Revolution.

For us, it was justified and high-minded to break the law to complain about our taxes and lack of rights. To bully and threaten to get our own way to a free and independent nation. But for the repressed Algerians to do it, it's patently dismissible thuggery?

I don't like rioting. I generally don't condone violence to get your way.

I also think that not all the people of France are xenophobes.

Just as America has its xenophobes and cosmopolitans -- and we argue regularly about issues -- France too has a mix of those who sincerely hold no malice towards Algerian-descendent persons, and those who are quite small-minded and racially bigotted.

Yet any American that says that civil riot and violence should be thwarted by repressive government violence in response -- regardless of the possibly-justified reason that began the riot -- is a living, walking, fat-headed hypocritical idiot.

Your very social right to free speech came about because people protested, rioted, got shot or shot at, or shot or shot at someone themselves, and then fought a multi-year bloody war to secure the right for you to express your pompous and ignorant buffoonery.

If the Algerians are rioting, it might behoove people to find out why, and see whether there can be legal, peaceful redress of grievances.

You know who defended the soldiers who shot the mob in Boston at that Boston Massacre?

John Adams.

Yes, he wanted American independence. He felt the British regime had unlawfully taxed America over and over again.

But he was so dedicated to the ideals of law and justice that he did not want to see the cause of American independence shoaled by unmitigated mob mentality.

He and a pair of others working on the case actually got the British soldiers acquitted of charges.

Are these riots insane? Destroying the people's own neighborhoods and making their own lots worse off? Yes. Quite likely. Were the Rodney King riots insane? Did black people torch their own black communities and destroy their own black neighborhood mini-malls? Regretably, yes.

So what causes mass mobs in 300 cities to suddenly lose all sense of trust in civil and peaceful society such that they rise up in such violence?

Riddle me that, all you simple-minded goons and one-dimensional excuses for mentalities.

I challenge you all to do this: find out more about the issues before you give dime-store bargain-basement solutions to problems that have been bred over centuries.

Learn your own history, and stop with the asinine simple-minded rhetoric.

Show respect to all the parties in the conflict, or simply get ignored, or perhaps bask in your famous five minutes of infamy, rightfully and scorned by those who have more depth of appreciation for what is occurring in the world. Ugly Americans. You disgust me.

We need to find the John Adams of the French-Algerian problem. We need to find those who can see there is an ideal law and justice that can be worked towards that is based in truth, and not prejudice. Minds that respect civil law and justice, but is also understand civil violence occurs when a people feel that it is their only way to express their deepest grievances.

When America forgets its roots, and what it did to secure its very liberties, is when we start sounding more and more like the imperialistic British that we wished to be free from in the first place. Just as they forgot how and why they threw off the yoke of tyranny that had required the Magna Carta to ensure their own legal protections.

At least no one has offered "let them eat cake."

(Maybe I haven't read far enough in this tripe-filled thread.)

The best post I have read on this forum.
The lack of understanding of what constitutes Europe as a continent, France as a nation and the smug "humour" being exhibited while a nation struggles to put rioting down with minimal loss of life is staggering. Thank you Listeneisse.

The best post I have read on this forum.
The lack of understanding of what constitutes Europe as a continent, France as a nation and the smug "humour" being exhibited while a nation struggles to put rioting down with minimal loss of life is staggering. Thank you Listeneisse.
Ditto. Thank you for taking time to explain it. I just hope the post isn't too long for people.

Hundred Years War: Mostly lost, saved at last by a female schizophrenic who inadvertently creates The First Rule of French Warfare - "France's armies are victorious only when not led by a Frenchmen."

More patent idiocy.

The French lost many engagements, but they won the war. At the end of it, England was reduced to Calais.

You didn't see England claiming any part of Aquitaine or Normandy thereafter did you?

No.

The English won a few decisive battles. People always recall those engagements because they were the crowning glory and often, such at Agincourt, rather unexpected to a weary, hard-marching army. But they could not win the war.

Compare the maps of Europe in 1328 to that of 1470 (http://www.ku.edu/kansas/medieval/108/lectures/hundred_years_war.html).

Read up upon Bertran du Guesclin (Bertrand du Guesclin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_Du_Guesclin)). He helped take back a lot of France from the English. He also added Brittany to the nation.

The war officially ended in 1453 with the capture of Bordeaux by the French. They had a rather decisive victory at the Battle of Castillon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Castillon) to prove it.

Yeah, the English had lost. And the French had beaten them. They lost interest in France. They had their own internal back-stabbing wars to fight over England.

Henry VI (of England) was having an episode of insanity. It was time for everyone to grab for the throne.

What was amazing, in retrospect, was that it took the century to accomplish it. 2 Million Englishmen were standing against 14 Million French.

However, France was not a united nation, and there were places such as Brittany, Burgundy, and so on that had a strong sense of independence. So much so that they often cooperated with the English to attack France for their own gain.

The tenacity of the French, though, allowed them to concentrate their power and align the feudal system for a centralized government.

And thus, in the end, England, no matter how many individual battles it won, could not win the war.

Logistics and manpower, and different more modern tactics and technology, won over the longbow at last.

Anyone who argues that the French lost the Hundred Years War should be shot with the 300 cannon the French used to blow Talbot to smithereens. Then perhaps they can be finished off with a battleaxe.

Rhetorically, of course.

I'm sorry. Theres a difference between genuine political unrest and rowdy youth setting a crippled woman on fire. When shit like that happens it makes it hard for me to take it seriously as, "a rebellion against the capitalist Republic." Which is silly anyways since France is a socialist welfare state. (which is part of the problem; i.e. sticking people in state funded slums)
Right. Poor people are braindead.
Poor people are also rich, because your income is payed to the poor people.
Poor people are arseholes & stealing your oxygen... Or rather, the headlines from Pamela Anderson.

Let's just kill the poor. They're uncoordinated anyway, so it doesn't matter when they object to having your money forced down their throat.

Do you honestly believe what you write? If you're up for it, I'll send you a TG & invite you to my part of town. There you'll meet political poverty, a-political reactions, and they'll be against a political system that favors the capitalist pissing-down-the-necks-of-the-poor that you lot hold as the holy grail.

Still, you might be too much middle-class (also known as; average & never rising above in this equal opportunity capitalist system) to survive here. Hell, why not come right now? It's not like you wouldn't be doing mankind a favour

Ahhhhhh let them eat cake .

Damn. I knew it would be there in the thread somewhere.

Oddly, Marie did not actually say it (http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_334.html), and the attribution to her seems to be something of a rabble-rousing disinformation propaganda ploy.

Not that (Fox News) Americans would ever (Fox News) stoop to such (Fox News) ploys.

None of the US riots have ever been on this scale. None of them ever lasted this long either, or occurred in such a widespread area over such a long period of time.

Care to try again to make a comparison?

No, they have not been, other than that minor problem called the AMERICAN CIVIL WAR fought over the "right" to enslave people.

Get over yourself.

Sarkozy should resign. He is the one responsible for the "violence". The rioters didn't kill anybody. Sarkozy did. We have had enough of him. He is an immigrant himself. He should go back to where he come from (but they wouldn't want him). Immigrants are welcome, but we don't need that kind of scum here.

The riots have claimed the life of a 61 year old retired worker, I believe. And there was a handicapped woman trapped on a torched bus who, while she is not dead, was terribly burned.

The rioters are not "innocent."

They need to calm down and stop destroying property and endangering lives.

How about this: Sarkozy only got into power because French people put him into office?

Don't pretend he's a lone actor. He was serving a role that others felt his sort of mindset and determination was simply delightful for when this all started.

Look not just at Sarkozy, but who his allies, supporters, sponsors and patrons were that got him his job.

If you are looking to correct the problem, look at the root cause, not just the obvious symptom.

I, however, do. The military. Try setting fire to an advancing tank, bloody immigrants.

Be careful what you ask for... (http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-04/11/content_322307.htm)

RPG-7s are cheap. $25.

How about this... let's try to get the situation solved through peaceful engagement and finding out what would make a better life for all people in France, eh?

The riots have claimed the life of a 61 year old retired worker, I believe.

And you believe rather wrong.

He was trying to suppress a fire. A group of rioters tried to steal his mobile phone. The man refused and they beat him to death. This is horrible, but it could have happen any when, it's not really related to the riots.

What I mean is that in case there were no riot, they would still quite certainly try to get his mobile phone (or someone else's).

Maykoy

The riots have claimed the life of a 61 year old retired worker, I believe. And there was a handicapped woman trapped on a torched bus who, while she is not dead, was terribly burned.

The rioters are not "innocent."

They need to calm down and stop destroying property and endangering lives.

How about this: Sarkozy only got into power because French people put him into office?

Don't pretend he's a lone actor. He was serving a role that others felt his sort of mindset and determination was simply delightful for when this all started.

Look not just at Sarkozy, but who his allies, supporters, sponsors and patrons were that got him his job.

If you are looking to correct the problem, look at the root cause, not just the obvious symptom.While Sarkozy isn't the only one responsible, him resigning (or getting fired) certainly poses the possibility of defusing the conflict enough to restore order. There is enough reason to: He's handled the situation badly enough and has proven he's not the best choice for minister of the interior.

The two young who were fleeing police thought they were safer in the electric station that at the hand of the police.

You damn don't know what you are talking about.
The familly of the 2 people you died refused to meet Sarkozy and most rioters are asking for Sarkozy to resign.
There was a third young man who fled with the other two. He admitted that they knew it was dangerous, and foolish, to run where they did.

They just did not want to get arrested for crimes they had committed.

They were not your idealistic freedom fighters.

Tragic victims? Yes. But now their memories are being manipulated by people who want there to be massive violence.

The situation needs to be solved through social discourse that seeks to equitably treat all parties.

But let's not make the petty crooks that got chased by police and ran into a Darwin Award-winning electrocution into saints, shall we?

Again, the fact that they died is tragic. But because of their third surviving companion we know that they knew it was a stupid thing to do (as is most breaking and entering and crime generally), but they chose to do it anyway.

They gambled with the law and their lives and they died.

Everything that happened after is probably something they would have never guessed.

Be careful what you ask for... (http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-04/11/content_322307.htm)

RPG-7s are cheap. $25.
You can't destroy a modern MBT with an RPG-7, not even with the advanced armor-piercing rounds of Western manufacture. Unless its a Russian tank like T72 or earlier, they can be destroyed with a turret hit from above (like from a building's roof).

It seems the socialist policy of handing out free money doesnt work . It seems people actually need real skills and a sense of accomplishment and self worth . They also need a sense of belonging to a society and the knowlage that they are fairly represented in that society. All these things are missing in France amongst the people the rioters come from . After they put a lid on the rioting , eventually they will have to address the racism and government policy that helped contribute to this mess . The more I look into it the more I do not understand the French .
In much of this I agree with you.

However, the US has its own racism and governmental policies, from municipal to county to state to national, contributing to its own messes, thank you.

The basis is dead on. People need to have skills, freedom, opportunity, etc.

Interestingly enough, the words "frank" and "franchise" meant that sense of free-wheeling self-confidence. To talk confidently and openly. To be able to look another fellow in the eyes as you speak to them. To truly act and be "French."

This is the same sort of spirit that all persons need to develop, and one of the worst unspoken crimes is to repress a soul such that it feels that it is just not worth their bother to speak their opinion for fear it will not be heeded, and to drive someone to inaction because whatever is undertaken will not matter.

Therefore, the French need to enfranchise the Algerian population. In the truest and most etymologically precise meaning of the word.

In just the same way, the Republican party seems to stand for an odd mix of authoritarianism, small government, militarism and the right to impose a standard of morality on everyone else.

This made me nearly choke.

Sadly, the Republican presidents were when we had the worst bloat of government.

Federal Debt as a % of GDP
(Incoming Year -> Outgoing Year)
___________________________________
Truman (D) 44-52 : 97.6% -> 74.3%
Eisenhower (R) 53-60 : 71.3% -> 56.1%
Kennedy (D) 61-63 : 55.1% -> 51.8%
Johnson (D) 63-68 : 51.8% -> 42.5%
Nixon (R) 69-74 : 38.6% -> 33.6%
Ford (R) 74-76 : 33.6% -> 36.2%
Carter (D) 77-80 : 35.8% -> 33.2%
Reagan (R) 81-88 : 32.6% -> 51.9%
Bush I (R) 89-92 : 53.1% -> 64.1%
Clinton (D) 93-00 : 66.2% -> 58%
Bush II (R) 01-04 : 57.4% -> 63.7%
Bush II (R) 05 (est) : 65.7%

In other words, since World War II, every single Democratic President was able to substantially reduce the debt burden of the United States compared to the GDP of the country necessary to support that debt.

And of the Republicans, only Eisenhower and Nixon were able to do the same thing. Eisenhower was obviously coasting down debt reduction after the massive bond drives of World War II.

Nixon, protesting that he was not a crook and driven out of office by scandal, at least was trying to keep the Republican pledge of smaller government.

But it's pretty clear the gravy train pulled into the station during Reagan, Bush I and II. The debt mushroomed.

Carter was excoriated for "allowing" the debt to increase to $100 Billion during his term. It grew because of inflation. Accounting for inflation, that debt actually represented a lower percentage of GDP when he left office than when he entered it.

Reagan took it and turned it into our first $1 Trillion debt (+900% in 8 years). Bush I took that and turned it from $1 Trillion into $4 Trillion in his short term of office (+300% in 4 years). We also suffered through a recession and ran a Gulf War debt up over that time.

Clinton slowed the rate of debt increase, and even ran a few surpluses, and it only grew from $4 Trillion to $5.6 Trillion during his two terms (+40% over 8 years). Moreover, the economy grew far faster over the same time.

We're now up to $8 Trillion after 5 years of Bush II (+43% over 5 years).

It's projected to grow to $9.948 Trillion by the end of his second term -- a total increase over his two terms of +78%. In other words, he's burning up debt at twice the rate of the much maligned Bill Clinton. You can thank a second Gulf War for a good deal of that unplanned budget increase -- i.e., more debt.

Republican presidents have been for the past three decades spending far more money that they don't have, cutting taxes while keeping or padding budgets, and it only seems to be that a Democrat in office brings spending down such that the debt is reduced compared to our total national GDP.

So don't talk about "Small Government Republicans," except perhaps in the local, regional or mythological level. They are a dinosaur extinct in the White House since the era of Watergate.

I suggest people actually read the US budget some time. It's a remarkable piece of history.

*snip*

Now place those numbers from the past into the dollars of today.

Also, under EVERY Administration, government expanded.

Now! Lets get back to the French riots shall we?

Right. Poor people are braindead.
Poor people are also rich, because your income is payed to the poor people.
Poor people are arseholes & stealing your oxygen... Or rather, the headlines from Pamela Anderson.

Let's just kill the poor. They're uncoordinated anyway, so it doesn't matter when they object to having your money forced down their throat.

Do you honestly believe what you write? If you're up for it, I'll send you a TG & invite you to my part of town. There you'll meet political poverty, a-political reactions, and they'll be against a political system that favors the capitalist pissing-down-the-necks-of-the-poor that you lot hold as the holy grail.

Still, you might be too much middle-class (also known as; average & never rising above in this equal opportunity capitalist system) to survive here. Hell, why not come right now? It's not like you wouldn't be doing mankind a favour

Overreact much? I see no part in my post where I advocated "pissing down the throats of the poor." All I was saying is that these rioters do not have a political agenda. There is no revolution, its just hooligans torching cars and looting stores.

I was listening to two French officials on NPR this morning. One right wing representative, and another guy who represents an immigration reform organization.

It was funny to listen to the immigration reform guy. He was speaking in French (which I understand), and there was a simultaneous translation to English. I always listen to the French, because they sometimes get the translation a bit off.

Well, the guy says that in order to stop the riots, we have to teach these people to be French, and if you come to France you have to love it or leave it (he sounded rather American there).

But the funny thing was his choice of word for the verb "to stop".

He said, "stopper", which I believe is a bastardization of the English word. When he should have used arrêter.

So, the guy who says they should love France is sticking English words in his speech? I thought that was hilarious.

You can't destroy a modern MBT with an RPG-7, not even with the advanced armor-piercing rounds of Western manufacture. Unless its a Russian tank like T72 or earlier, they can be destroyed with a turret hit from above (like from a building's roof).

Guess again. (http://www.defense-update.com/features/du-1-04/rpg-threat.htm)

Apparently you can.

He said, "stopper", which I believe is a bastardization of the English word. When he should have used arrêter.


The word 'stop' has been in the french language since, at least, 1792.

The verb stopper, even if more recent is still rather old (couldn't find a date for that one).

So it's perfectly correct for in french to say 'stopper' (but it's true that arrêter sounds better, but still there is a small nuance)

Maykoy

The word 'stop' has been in the french language since, at least, 1792.

The verb stopper, even if more recent is still rather old (couldn't find a date for that one).

So it's perfectly correct for in french to say 'stopper' (but it's true that arrêter sounds better, but still there is a small nuance)

Maykoy

It sounds weird to hear it.

PARIS – Amid an 11th straight night of unrest by rioting immigrant youths across the country, French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin made an urgent appeal to protestors requesting that “pas le visage! Pas le visage!”

Villepin, who is a man, made the emergency request during another fiery night in the Parisian suburbs that saw 1300 cars, dozens of buildings, and hundreds of overpriced desserts go up in flames.

Villepin took control of the Chirac government’s protest response effort Tuesday after Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy’s 'get-tough' policy of sending in the Paris Police’s elite windmill-slapping squads proved ineffective against rioters. Villepin promised a less confrontational approach emphasizing dialog, discussion of protestor grievances, and “curling ourselves into safe, fetal balls of mutual cultural understanding.”

Villepin’s diplomatic approach seemed to bear fruit as protestors largely refrained from beating his face, and instead focused their efforts on “les ouegies,” “les wettes-du-Willi” and “les souerlies.”

After the incident Villepin said he planned to build on the overnight progress, and urged a nationwide television audience for ‘cultural reconciliation’ and ‘pas plus le pantsing, sil vous plait.’

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y180/MrMisanthrope/frenchy1.jpg

FRENCH RIOTERS UNIONIZE, GO ON STRIKE

Complaining of unsafe working conditions, lack of vacation time, and illegal 40-hour weeks, the French Union of Disaffected Immigrant Youth Rioters staged declared a general strike today.

“We are going to riot and burn cars every night until our demands are met,” warned Musab Al-Dura, a spokesman for the newly formed labor union.

Many analysts feared the surprise walkout could paralyze France’s all-important riot industry, but riot management spokesman Khalil Hassan said that he had received permission from French labor officials and the EU to hire temporary Belgian replacement immigrant rioters to fill positions vacated by rioting domestic French immigrant strikers.

*snip*

You done?

Now how bout trying to add something constructive to the debate?

You done?

Now how bout trying to add something constructive to the debate?

We should do as the French are doing, and take our time. Obviously, if they haven't even bothered with curfews until the 12th day of rioting and pillaging, the French are not in a hurry to stop the rioting.

If I was to do something more constructive than I've done in this thread (and I believe I've been fairly constructive), I would do something instead of holding endless meetings and making announcements to the press about how I'm going to be "firm and fair".

If I was to do something more constructive than I've done in this thread (and I believe I've been fairly constructive).
I was talking to Syniks and his side splittingly hilarious unoriginal take on the French.

I was talking to Syniks and his side splittingly hilarious unoriginal take on the French.

Maybe we should get on the phone, and call the French government, and tell them to get out of those stupid meetings and do something.

Ok. To anyone out there who thinks that this is the exclusive result of French "xenophobia" and "lack of understanding".

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarkozy :
Nicolas Sarkozy is the son of Pál nagybócsai Sárközy (some sources spell it Pál Nagy-Bócsay Sárközy) (Hungarian pronunciation ▶(?)), who was born in 1928 in Budapest, Hungary, into a family belonging to the lower aristocracy of Hungary. The family possessed land and a small castle in Alattyán (in the Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok region, 92 km or 57 miles east of Budapest). (...) Paul Sarkozy moved to Paris where he entered the advertising industry, using his artistic skills. He met Andrée Mallah, Nicolas Sarkozy's mother, in 1949. Andrée Mallah, then a law student, was the daughter of Benedict Mallah, a wealthy physician with a well-established reputation and practice in the very bourgeois 17th Arrondissement of Paris. Benedict Mallah was originally a Sephardic Jew from Salonica in the Ottoman Empire (now a part of Greece). According to Jewish genealogical societies, the Mallah family of Salonica came from Provence in southern France, which they probably had left at the time of the Jewish expulsions in the Middle Ages. At the beginning of the 20th century, Benedict Mallah migrated to France, acquired French citizenship, and converted to Catholicism when he married his French Catholic wife, Nicolas Sarkozy's grandmother.
(I think the Hungarian names might be misspelled, but it shouldn't matter.)

Not to say that social problems don't exist! But they exist everywhere. (If Americans want to keep on producing prophecies about Europe, let them at least look at some facts.)

But two short months ago, European newspapers and magazines were in full thrall over Hurricane Katrina, and the Bush Administration’s flawed response.

They were joined in their journalistic ecstasy by prominent American reporters, including Brian Williams (“he owned the hurricane” remarked one elated NBC news division staffer), Anderson Cooper, Geraldo Rivera and many others. The hurricane was the tidal wave that would finally destroy the Bush Presidency,and expose America’s great class and racial divide. For those who had not cracked their heads dozing off while trying to read the New York Times endless series on class in America, now it was on full display on their TV each night.

Of course, the coverage was overblown, and in many cases flat out wrong. Gangs were not running wild in New Orleans, raping and murdering innocents in the Super Dome. More whites than blacks died in Louisiana and Mississippi from the hurricane and its aftermath, even if that story has not appeared yet in your local paper. The biggest failure was the response by the Mayor of New Orleans and the Governor of Louisiana , two public officials who gave new meaning to the words incompetent, ineffectual and unprepared. Federal failures did not help any, but in reality the biggest federal failure was probably a delay of a day or perhaps two in arriving on the scene with major manpower. Ask any Mayor or Governor who has dealt with hurricanes before, and they will all tell you that local officials have to be prepared for the first 72 or 96 hours to handle things themselves. In New Orleans they weren’t.

But the media sensationalism and frenzy around Hurricane Katrina communicated a very different story: poor blacks left behind to die and starve by an uncaring Bush Administration. That story was nonsense, but it fit the liberal politics of those who reported the story both here and internationally.

Now France has its own Katrina-type disaster, and other countries in Europe are starting to join the party. This, of course, is the firestorm of immigrant riots (better read as Muslim riots, since many of the so-called immigrants, most of whom are Muslims, were born in France). The riots started in France almost two weeks ago, and have grown by the day. Remember that the Katrina problems were getting resolved even as the media was piling on with the metaphors. In France, the situation is getting much worse by the day.

What was initially a story of unrest among a few Arab and African youths angered by the electrocution of two young men in a Paris suburb, is now 300 towns and neighborhoods on fire, with the metrics of car fires and more lethal violence increasing by the day. The violence on Monday slipped across the border into Germany and Belgium. Expect more to join the action. For Western Europe is the same story in one country after another: rich social welfare systems, aging populations, high unemployment (particularly in Germany and France), very low birthrates, and very rapid growth in largely unassimilated immigrant populations, some of it legal, some not (the illegal part aided by the new open EU borders between the 25 member countries).

And for once, there is a problem somewhere in the world that can not be blamed on President Bush. Paul Krugman has not been heard from in his New York Times op-eds on the subject of why Paris is burning despite his opportunity twice a week to “inform” his readers. When last heard from on the subject of France, in July , he was merrily extolling the French social model, particularly in comparison to America’s low tax, low unemployment, high economic growth model that he finds so disturbing.

After all, if Bush cannnot be blamed, why would the subject be worth writing about? The French riots have exposed that the European cradle-to-grave social model works for some, but not all. (Does this sound familiar?) And believe it or not, the definition of the have-nots appears to have a racial and or ethnic component, the very smear that Europeans like to make about America, and reveled in during the first days after Katrina hit. The New European was to be an individual beyond the narrow confines of the nation state or any ethnic or religious identity.

Now, of course, the blame for the current depravity in France is not all on the French authorities, or the country’s failure to integrate all its new members. After all, you can not integrate into your society, those who choose to stay apart. In many Muslim communities in Europe the leadership, particularly in the mosques, preaches the importance of remaining apart, and preserving an Islamic identity, which will be lost if one is assimilated into a secular Western culture. The bombings in London in July were carried out by young Islamic men who were no more materially impoverished than the al Qaeda killers on 9/11. In both cases, these killers both lived in a Western society, and also outside it.

The behavior of the rioters in France is contemptible, just as it was in this country in the Rodney King riots in Los Angeles or the various race riots decades earlier. The champions of “the rioters are the real victims” mindset, are already all over the media, blaming France for the burning cars, and for the shots fired at the police. So far, there is no evidence that the Paris rioters are loading up on Nikes or television sets, which must require a higher level of anger and grievance before this behavior pattern sets in. Burning cars seems to be the French specialty.

Of course, everything is not peaches and cream on the American immigrant front. Read Victor Davis Hanson’s Mexifornia for a solid review of the subject, in particular the issues associated with the surge of enormous illegal immigration into a few southwestern states. But this country has a 400 year history of absorbing immigrants ,and by and large we have learned to do it better than anybody else.

All things being equal, in the late 20th century draft lottery, America won by getting the first pick in the immigrant draft and selecting Mexicans. Paris would not be burning if Mexicans filled their immigrant suburbs. Every nation has had poor people and groups at one time or another in its history. Not all, or even many, of these groups, behaved as France’s Arabs and North Africans are today.

American liberals have looked admiringly across the Atlantic, and marveled at the new secular, post-modern societies that have been created. These are nations with no religious right to worry about, with high taxes to support big government spending programs. Little is invested in national defense, and everybody believes in peace and human rights, and thinks the UN and international courts are the way to achieve this. Tolerance is the underpinning of most belief systems. No-one is to be judged (except Texans, Israelis and observant Christians).

Suddenly, the new utopia is naked and on fire. I expect a huge step-up in the police and military response to get the situation temporarily under control. And then all the usual liberal bromides will follow – more money, some make-work jobs programs, perhaps a few Oprah-type discussion groups on how everybody can get along better if only communication lines were more open.

There will be an expressed need to start the “conversation”, to use a Clinton era homily.

But Europe’s problems are not going away.

And while this may shock Tim Russert and Chris Matthews, this is a bigger story than Lewis Libby’s alleged perjury, or Joe Wilson’s latest charges. But it puts Europe, not America or George Bush, in a bad light, so for the mainstream media, it is sheer agony for this to be the big story. On Sunday the Paris story did not make the New York Times front page.

It got one column on the front page Monday, almost unavoidable at this point. Regrettably for the Times, no CIA leaker can pin these events on Bush. It is hard not to smirk a bit at all this. Karl Rove was not indicted. A brilliant conservative judge is likely to get approved for the Supreme Court for the second time in a few months. And Europe’s social and racial tensions are now on display, not America’s, and the story is forcing its way onto the TV screens and front pages. All of a sudden, life is unfair for Pinch Sulzberger and his minions. George Bush was to go up in flames this Fall, not Paris.

Sorry folks, I haven't read through the numerous posts on this thread, so if someone's brought this up already I apologize in advance.

Don't the French have something like tha national guard? Can't they put some soldiers on the streets to keep order? It seems they've ignored the problem. They haven't even put curfews into place until now. When gangs of enraged young men are burning and looting the city and beating and killing bystanders shouldn't the reaction be immediate and irresistible in order to impose order?

If the rioters do have legitimate complaints they should be addressed by the French government, but only after the riots are stopped. If the riots aren't forcefully ended and the criminals brought to justice then the French are merely surrendering to the rioters and any concessions they offer will be seen by the more radical of the rioters as the spoils of victory rather than justice. Failure to get tough on the rioters will only encourage more riots in the future. It will become a standard negotiating tool if the only reaction by the French is dialog and concessions.

Don't the French have something like tha national guard? Can't they put some soldiers on the streets to keep order?

Ha! Only uncivilized Americans react to deadly riots with such barbarity! No, no, the enlightened French are handling this in the best way possible. Though I think the curfew was a tad over the line. Treating the violent murderous thugs as nothing more than violent murderous thugs will get you nowhere! What they really need is a Memorandum of Understanding or two. Of course, the should apologize for not being Muslim, too. That's a given.

EDIT: Because sadly there are people who are actually saying the above, I should point out that that was sarcasm.

Sorry folks, I haven't read through the numerous posts on this thread, so if someone's brought this up already I apologize in advance.

Don't the French have something like tha national guard? Can't they put some soldiers on the streets to keep order? It seems they've ignored the problem. They haven't even put curfews into place until now. When gangs of enraged young men are burning and looting the city and beating and killing bystanders shouldn't the reaction be immediate and irresistible in order to impose order?

If the rioters do have legitimate complaints they should be addressed by the French government, but only after the riots are stopped. If the riots aren't forcefully ended and the criminals brought to justice then the French are merely surrendering to the rioters and any concessions they offer will be seen by the more radical of the rioters as the spoils of victory rather than justice. Failure to get tough on the rioters will only encourage more riots in the future. It will become a standard negotiating tool if the only reaction by the French is dialog and concessions.

The French government seems slower at responding to this crisis than Bush was to Katrina.

The French government seems slower at responding to this crisis than Bush was to Katrina.
Quoting a commenter on one of the blogs I read, it took Chirac 12 days to finish the French edition of "My pet goat";)

Now France has its own Katrina-type disaster, and other countries in Europe are starting to join the party. This, of course, is the firestorm of immigrant riots (better read as Muslim riots, since many of the so-called immigrants, most of whom are Muslims, were born in France). The riots started in France almost two weeks ago, and have grown by the day. Remember that the Katrina problems were getting resolved even as the media was piling on with the metaphors. In France, the situation is getting much worse by the day

But Europe’s problems are not going away.

Suddenly, the new utopia is naked and on fire.

Sigh.

Let us indulge in a simple geography lesson first, shall we? According to wikipedia.org, these are the current states of Europe (some are disputable: why is Azerbaijan there?)

Albania
Andorra
Armenia
Austria
Azerbaijan
Belarus
Belgium
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Bulgaria
Croatia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Georgia
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Latvia
Macedonia
Malta
Moldova
Monaco
Netherlands
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
San Marino
Serbia and Montenegro
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
Ukraine
United Kingdom
Vatican City

So when you use the term 'Europe' you are in fact referring to 30+ nations.

Now, disturbances are occuring in one or two of these states, predominately France. Therefore Europe is not 'naked and on fire'.

Why is France on fire, when so far the riots have only caused one fatality?Okay, they have caused a bit of disturbance but probably no more than a state should really expect every so often. The UK has had to fight a far more destructive battle in Northern Ireland for the last 50 years but we haven't heard claims that the UK is crashing and burning into the dust.

So, most of the Americans posting on this thread are probably reacting out of an anti-European (and more specifically, anti-French) prejudice.

Why is France on fire, when so far the riots have only caused one fatality? Okay, they have caused a bit of disturbance but probably no more than a state should really expect every so often.

I'm glad that you believe that bashing a man's head in, and setting a crippled woman on fire, and shooting policemen, and burning thousands and thousands of cars, and hundreds of buildings is "a bit of disturbance".

Maybe you should be the Interior Minister of France, and suggest that since this is not a big deal, that nothing should be done.

I distinctly remember the criticism of America in the French press - how they derided both Bush and the US for the slow response to Katrina, and the inaction taken against looters.

Now it's the French turn to be criticized.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051103/ap_on_re_eu/france_rioting_24



Sounds like the French are unable to handle this - it's getting worse...

I personally don't see how this is different than the LA riots, only more cars getting burned and less people being killed.

I personally don't see how this is different than the LA riots, only more cars getting burned and less people being killed.

The difference I see is that during the Katrina coverage, the French media and some French officials were quick to point out that such a thing would never happen in France - they are so far ahead in their social policies, and of course, there are no racists in France...

And of course, the French never make any mistakes in social policy - whether it is warehousing the poor in massive housing blocks, or taking in millions of immigrants with no real plan to integrate them into society (just a wishful, "Be French!").

When I heard that French guy say, "the problem is that they have to love France or leave it," I was reminded of similar sentiments in the US - sentiments that the French are quick to criticize us for.

And the French government response is far slower than anything the US has ever done - even slower than Katrina.

Can't this topic be discussed without people constantly saying "but it's worse in the US" or "see how France is worse than the US"? :headbang:

The difference I see is that during the Katrina coverage, the French media and some French officials were quick to point out that such a thing would never happen in France.

Yeah, but that's apples & oranges, you can't compare Katrina to the France riots. One is a natural disaster to which most 1st world nations are suppose to be able to respond to.

No, the riots going on in France are far more comparable to the LA riots. And neither country handled them well. Like I said, in France they've burned more cars and in LA they killed more people.

Can't this topic be discussed without people constantly saying "but it's worse in the US" or "see how France is worse than the US"? :headbang:

I'm not saying it's worse - I'm saying that the French gave us a load of crap over how we run our country, saying it would never happen there.

And I heard a French politician say on NPR this morning that "a multicultural society would be a disaster".

Boy, if Bush ever said that on TV, the press would have a field day.

"a multicultural society would be a disaster".

Seems to work just fine in Canada.

I'm not saying it's worse - I'm saying that the French gave us a load of crap over how we run our country, saying it would never happen there.

And I heard a French politician say on NPR this morning that "a multicultural society would be a disaster".

Boy, if Bush ever said that on TV, the press would have a field day.

If any American said that, the press would have a field day period.

Maybe you should be the Interior Minister of France, and suggest that since this is not a big deal, that nothing should be done.


Things are being done. The riots are cooling down.

Many of you are talking of 'using real guns' and 'martial law' and since they don't see that they presume nothing is being done.

Yes for sure we could fire at the rioters but that would imply much too many things. Because, as long as you keep using flashballs or tasers or things like that, you still have the possibility to go for something bigger (guns).

Whereas when you use guns you're already at the maximum and if things go wrong you can't do anything more.

Furthermore, there is some sort of agreement. A few rioters do have guns, but they don't use them because they don't fear for their life. There have been, what?, one or two records of rioters shooting at policemen. And none of them was hurt seriously.

If we use lethal weapons this time, we'll have to use it everytime. Not only for other riots but every day. And french don't want that.

Maykoy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots

Six days in LA. Compared to 12 already in France. 53 known deaths - but we don't know the real toll in France yet. The police in France are obviously not in control anywhere.

For the LA Riots to be comparable in scope, there would have to have been riots all over California in over 300 towns.

The second day of the LA Riots saw 2000 National Guard, and the fourth day saw 4000 Marines.

What were the French doing on day 2 and day 4 of these riots? Nothing.

I personally don't see how this is different than the LA riots, only more cars getting burned and less people being killed.
1)The French riots are on a countrywide (http://timblair.net/ee/images/uploads/happyunifiedfrance.gif) scale and splashing out to neighboring countries.
2)The French riots have a clearly ethnic and religious character. To a limit, the same could have been said about the LA "race" riots- but the problem is that in France, the rioters come from the ethnic and religious community that at the moment makes up as much as 30% of the total population. A world of difference.
3)During LA riots, the rioters themselves did not describe their activities as a civil war, nor did they aim to ignite one.
4)And of course, nobody ever blamed (http://www.mehrnews.ir/en/NewsDetail.aspx?NewsID=249990) the LA riots on "Zionists".;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots

Six days in LA. Compared to 12 already in France. 53 known deaths - but we don't know the real toll in France yet. The police in France are obviously not in control anywhere.

For the LA Riots to be comparable in scope, there would have to have been riots all over California in over 300 towns.

The second day of the LA Riots saw 2000 National Guard, and the fourth day saw 4000 Marines.

What were the French doing on day 2 and day 4 of these riots? Nothing.

And they only thing they have done right now is institute a curfew. Like that will work right now. Hopefully the police will get the upper hand. If not, then the troops should be called in.

I'm not saying it's worse - I'm saying that the French gave us a load of crap over how we run our country, saying it would never happen there.

And I heard a French politician say on NPR this morning that "a multicultural society would be a disaster".

Boy, if Bush ever said that on TV, the press would have a field day.

I don't have a problem with pointing out double standards, what I dislike is the attitude of several posters, whose intent seems to be nothing more taking a cheap shot at France (especially those people who complain about America bashing all the time) or people who try to apologize the situation in France by saying "it's so much worse in the US".

1)The French riots are on a countrywide (http://timblair.net/ee/images/uploads/happyunifiedfrance.gif) scale and splashing out to neighboring countries.
2)The French riots have a clearly ethnic and religious character. To a limit, the same could have been said about the LA "race" riots- but the problem is that in France, the rioters come from the ethnic and religious community that at the moment makes up as much as 30% of the total population. A world of difference.
3)During LA riots, the rioters themselves did not describe their activities as a civil war, nor did they aim to ignite one.
4)And of course, nobody ever blamed (http://www.mehrnews.ir/en/NewsDetail.aspx?NewsID=249990) the LA riots on "Zionists".;)

Well, if you look at the size of California and LA and the size of France it puts it into better perspective.. both are certainly about (as they see it) racial, lack of equality. And most of the people rioting are teenagers, I think the riots going on in France are more alike the LA riots then they're not. As for civil war..lol that's just funny. Teenagers can blow things so out of all stretches of the imagination, can't they?

I personally don't see how this is different than the LA riots, only more cars getting burned and less people being killed.

And the LA riots lasted for only six days. Also, don't compare the LA Race Riots to the current riots in Paris. That is racist. (Just telling you what I was told earlier.)

Well, if you look at the size of California and LA and the size of France it puts it into better perspective.. both are certainly about (as they see it) racial, lack of equality. And most of the people rioting are teenagers, I think the riots going on in France are more alike the LA riots then they're not. As for civil war..lol that's just funny. Teenagers can blow things so out of all stretches of the imagination, can't they?

Are you sure they are blowing it out of proportion? Come on Steph, you just can't make an assurence like that. We all know your political leanings.

Seems to work just fine in Canada.
That's not what the French think.

Well, if you look at the size of California and LA and the size of France it puts it into better perspective.. both are certainly about (as they see it) racial, lack of equality. And most of the people rioting are teenagers, I think the riots going on in France are more alike the LA riots then they're not. As for civil war..lol that's just funny. Teenagers can blow things so out of all stretches of the imagination, can't they?

As I pointed out, the LA riots were confined to LA. They did not extend outwards to 300 towns all across California.

The riots in France have extended all the way to Nice and Marseilles - cities that are NOT suburbs of Paris.

The protests have gone on for almost 2 weeks, and it doesnt appear to be coming to a halt. I blame the French government. They have only now ALLOWED for communities to decide if a midnight curfew is in order. The army needs to be brought in and martial law should be allowed because this is a war zone.

The protests have gone on for almost 2 weeks, and it doesnt appear to be coming to a halt. I blame the French government. They have only now ALLOWED for communities to decide if a midnight curfew is in order. The army needs to be brought in and martial law should be allowed because this is a war zone.

The French (as opposed to even the British) have a different view of the word "curfew".

It apparently is something they don't like, no matter what the results may be. So we can't force the French to "implement a curfew". This has to go on until either the rioters or the French public gets tired of it.

Consider that most French police today don't even carry a real gun, and you can see the public attitude towards law and order.

I don't understand why the rioters are complaining about unemployment and poverty when France has a pretty generous social welfare program. So you're unemployed, are you starving or homeless? No, so why are you rioting?

I don't understand why the rioters are complaining about unemployment and poverty when France has a pretty generous social welfare program. So you're unemployed, are you starving or homeless? No, so why are you rioting?

Unemployment among the younger generation of immigrants is above 40 percent. They realize that they face a lifetime of living in the same public warehouse that their parents lived in - no prospect of ever succeeding in France.

Oh, and for those who think the damage is just a few cars burnt...

LONDON, Nov 8 (Reuters) - The spread of social unrest in France is undermining investor confidence in the euro and raising fears of an interest rate hike in the euro zone, a prospect that is taking a heavy toll on bonds.

The euro plunged to a two-year low versus the dollar as youths across France torched more than 1,000 vehicles despite government plans to impose curfews to quell 2 weeks of violence.

Investors remained on edge as a few cars were also burnt in Brussels in what appeared to be an imitation of the violence in France, though there is so far only limited evidence that the unrest is spreading beyond the eurozone's second largest economy.

"I think there are some concerns about the way Europe is evolving both economically and socially," said Jon Lee, interest rate strategist at Barclays Capital in London.

"In terms of the French rioting and that spreading anywhere else, it continues to underpin just how volatile society may prove to be should unemployment remain very high and there generally (continue to) be these grievances," Lee said.

Some economists agreed with Lee's assessment and said the violent protests could, if they last, deepen the gloom felt by French consumers who are already fretting about weak economic growth and chronic unemployment around 10 percent.

Are you sure they are blowing it out of proportion?

a) They're teenages.
b) They have no leadership
c) They aren't killing people
d) The rioters as a whole seem to have a beef with the police, not France.

Although this can probably be dismissed because of my political leanings.:(

a) They're teenages.
b) They have no leadership
c) They aren't killing people
d) The rioters as a whole seem to have a beef with the police, not France.
Simple and clear. Great post.

a) They're teenages.
b) They have no leadership
c) They aren't killing people
d) The rioters as a whole seem to have a beef with the police, not France.

Although this can probably be dismissed because of my political leanings.:(

Just one person beaten to death, and another person grievously burned.

And though they may not have a central leader, they are being coordinated through weblogs and forums and cellphones.

Considering that the police are agents of the government, that would be a beef with France.

<snip>

Damnit! I was counting on a strong euro for when I got my new computer. Ah well, another two weeks of saving.

Just one person beaten to death, and another person grievously burned.

And though they may not have a central leader, they are being coordinated through weblogs and forums and cellphones.

Considering that the police are agents of the government, that would be a beef with France.
Oh. Then it means America has a revolution every fucking hour.

Oh. Then it means America has a revolution every fucking hour.

Well, we've done quite well in the violence department. Down 63 percent over the last ten years - you're more likely to be killed by a drunk driver than killed as an act of homicide.

Oh. Then it means America has a revolution every fucking hour.

We had 2 in our history. 1775-1783 when we tossed out the Brits and then again in 1861-1865 that the South didn't win.

Well, we've done quite well in the violence department. Down 63 percent over the last ten years - you're more likely to be killed by a drunk driver than killed as an act of homicide.
Ban cars! Won't somebody please think of the children?

Really though. Considering how many armed folks there are in the US, we're a pretty peacefull society. Maybe it's because of how many armed people there are.

Just one person beaten to death, and another person grievously burned.

Don't do that "just" thing to me. A civil war usually involves mass killings, no?


And though they may not have a central leader, they are being coordinated through weblogs and forums and cellphones.

Ok, I concede. However, many Anarchist riots I've been at did the same thing. No one called it a civil war.

Considering that the police are agents of the government, that would be a beef with France.

No. There are no calls for the police to be disbanded, rather for it's head to be sacked and it's policies reviewed.

No. There are no calls for the police to be disbanded, rather for it's head to be sacked and it's policies reviewed.

In that case, vote at the voting box.

Well, we've done quite well in the violence department. Down 63 percent over the last ten years - you're more likely to be killed by a drunk driver than killed as an act of homicide.
Oh. So you have no two people getting injured or dead in an outburst of violence, you no longer have people talking on the phone and using chats, and nobody in the US has a conflict with local police (unless they want to topple the gvt.)!
Get a grip.

Don't do that "just" thing to me. A civil war usually involves mass killings, no?

Ok, I concede. However, many Anarchist riots I've been at did the same thing. No one called it a civil war.

No. There are no calls for the police to be disbanded, rather for it's head to be sacked and it's policies reviewed.

I'm not calling it a civil war. But it is a mass sustained civil disturbance that is starting to have economic consequences far beyond a few thousand burned cars.

The French police are already essentially emasculated. They carry a ridiculous gun that shoots a rubber ball instead of carrying a real gun. And if they use it, they still get in trouble.

I find it quite informative that when two policewomen were attacked and surrounded, it took two hours for any other police to respond to help them. It tells me that the police are too afraid to venture out even to help their own - making them completely ineffective as police.

Ban cars! Won't somebody please think of the children?

Really though. Considering how many armed folks there are in the US, we're a pretty peacefull society. Maybe it's because of how many armed people there are.

Indeed. A discussion for another time perhaps? I don't wasnt this bogged down into pro/anti gun.

Indeed. A discussion for another time perhaps? I don't wasnt this bogged down into pro/anti gun.
Agreed. Let's get back to rioting.

We had 2 in our history. 1775-1783 when we tossed out the Brits and then again in 1861-1865 that the South didn't win.
Why don't you consider what I was answering to?

As I pointed out, the LA riots were confined to LA. They did not extend outwards to 300 towns all across California.

The riots in France have extended all the way to Nice and Marseilles - cities that are NOT suburbs of Paris.

The "burbs" being spoken of in France are again comparable to Compton in LA. Yes, the Americans are more trigger happy and have no problem to shoot first and ask questions later, however, France does have a tendency to be shall we say more diplomatic. I think they are trying to solve the situation in France without people shooting each other like the LA riots.. sure some cars are being burned, but the death toll is nothing compared to what happened in the LA riots. I'm also not trying to say they're exactly alike, because I'm sure they're not exactly, but damn close.

Corneliu - I'm not sure what my political leanings have to do with this? I live in Canada..lol

The "burbs" being spoken of in France are again comparable to Compton in LA.

Nice, Lyons, and Marseilles are not "burbs" of Paris...

Is a Canadian's knowledge of geography that poor?

I'm not calling it a civil war. But it is a mass sustained civil disturbance that is starting to have economic consequences far beyond a few thousand burned cars.


3)During LA riots, the rioters themselves did not describe their activities as a civil war, nor did they aim to ignite one.


The Holy Womble did, and was backed by Corneliu. I answered his points and you countered my answer. I assumed (because you were arguing with me) that you thought it was a civil war. I apologize.

The French police are already essentially emasculated. They carry a ridiculous gun that shoots a rubber ball instead of carrying a real gun. And if they use it, they still get in trouble.

As a result: One death in twelve days of rioting.


I find it quite informative that when two policewomen were attacked and surrounded, it took two hours for any other police to respond to help them. It tells me that the police are too afraid to venture out even to help their own - making them completely ineffective as police.

This happens everywhere in riots. Happened at G8, happened at Seattle. Regular police are usually ineffective in riots. Thats why you have riot police.

The "burbs" being spoken of in France are again comparable to Compton in LA. Yes, the Americans are more trigger happy and have no problem to shoot first and ask questions later, however, France does have a tendency to be shall we say more diplomatic. I think they are trying to solve the situation in France without people shooting each other like the LA riots.. sure some cars are being burned, but the death toll is nothing compared to what happened in the LA riots. I'm also not trying to say they're exactly alike, because I'm sure they're not exactly, but damn close.

Since when is Nice a burb of Paris?

Since when is Nice a burb of Paris?

I think what s/he was trying to say was that the riots are happening almost exclusively in poorer areas.

This happens everywhere in riots. Happened at G8, happened at Seattle. Regular police are usually ineffective in riots. Thats why you have riot police.

And our riot police do a tremendous job of quelling a riot and if they can't, then the National Guard is called in to assist.

This happens everywhere in riots. Happened at G8, happened at Seattle. Regular police are usually ineffective in riots. Thats why you have riot police.

The French riot police seem to be ineffective.

I've seen many demonstrations here - the police seem to liberally hose people down with pepper spray (IMHO, better than a ball gun).

I think what s/he was trying to say was that the riot are happening almost exclusively in poorer area.

Then see my comments earlier in the thread on why it happened that way...

The French riot police seem to be ineffective.

Indeed. I wonder why? Apart from all the usual "French people are incompetent" line.

I've seen many demonstrations here - the police seem to liberally hose people down with pepper spray (IMHO, better than a ball gun).

Neither are terribly pleasant. And face it: If someone is up to being shot in the chest with a ball, chances are they don't care much about pepper spray either.

Neither are terribly pleasant. And face it: If someone is up to being shot in the chest with a ball, chances are they don't care much about pepper spray either.

HAHA! Do you even know what pepper spray does to your eyes? It stings and you won't be able to do anything.

Indeed. I wonder why? Apart from all the usual "French people are incompetent" line.


It might have something to do with the idea that the French riot police can never gather in sufficient numbers at any one location due to the scale of the event. And they require greater numbers of police to have the same effect because they are impotently armed.

If they were all riding around with the traditional MAT 49, they would be more effective, even if dispersed.

Not that the French seem to like the idea of a dead felon - something that is politically desireable on this side of the pond.

HAHA! Do you even know what pepper spray does to your eyes? It stings and you won't be able to do anything.

Indeed. And the ball gun hits you with such force that it can shatter ribs. You won't be standing after either.

Indeed. And the ball gun hits you with such force that it can shatter ribs. You won't be standing after either.

Neither pepper spray nor the ball gun are effective past a very short distance. Riot police armed with assault rifles have a much greater effective range.

Nice, Lyons, and Marseilles are not "burbs" of Paris...

Is a Canadian's knowledge of geography that poor?

I was addressing where most of the rioting is taking place. Not a few off-shoots. The Canadian education system far exceeds that of the American education system.. but to answer your question, no, I have no problem with geography. I also have friends in France right now and might have a little better insight as to what is going on. But, meh, whatever. These discussions always turn into "how much better America is than everyone else" gets a little tiresome.

It might have something to do with the idea that the French riot police can never gather in sufficient numbers at any one location due to the scale of the event. And they require greater numbers of police to have the same effect because they are impotently armed.

Now there's an answer I can get my teeth into.


If they were all riding around with the traditional MAT 49, they would be more effective, even if dispersed.

I doubt it. What are they going to do? Fire into a crowd? That sort of thing is generally seen as a no-no


Not that the French seem to like the idea of a dead felon - something that is politically desireable on this side of the pond.

Cultural differences, I suppose.

I was addressing where most of the rioting is taking place. Not a few off-shoots. The Canadian education system far exceeds that of the American education system.. but to answer your question, no, I have no problem with geography. I also have friends in France right now and might have a little better insight as to what is going on. But, meh, whatever. These discussions always turn into "how much better America is than everyone else" gets a little tiresome.

And you are the only person outside of France who has contacts in France, is that your ridiculous assumption?

Neither pepper spray nor the ball gun are effective past a very short distance. Riot police armed with assault rifles have a much greater effective range.

But are leathal, no?

And you are the only person outside of France who has contacts in France, is that your ridiculous assumption?

I would assume I'm not. However by the reactions on this one discussion it would appear so.

But are leathal, no?

Yes. Here in the US, if you're a rioter, and you are engaged in a violent felony (throwing a Molotov counts), you can be shot dead on the spot.

Can't shoot the unarmed protesters. But the armed ones can be selected and shot out of the crowd. It is what SWAT team snipers train for.

Also, if the whole crowd gets violent, and is acting at the direction of any particular individual, it may be necessary to select and shoot that person out of the crowd. A leader holding a bullhorn, for instance.

The fact that it doesn't happen that often is a good thing - but it's perfectly legal. When rioters know for sure that you're not really going to stop them, they feel free to do what they want. Knowing that maybe today, some policeman will shoot you, makes a deterrent difference.

I would assume I'm not. However by the reactions on this one discussion it would appear so.

Not in my case.

<snip>

Intresting, but I have never heard any reports of American police shooting rioters dead. Seems the guns serve a physological purpose rather than a practical one.

Not in my case.

Well it would appear to me that for most in this thread it is simply become a venue to bash France. I guess it's that mother complex thing, America gained her independents thanks to France and so now America is going through the teenage years and feels they must rebel against the parental figure. I don't know, it just seems a country like France that has done nothing to piss off the world gets bashed by the Americans who have done everything to piss off the world. Just an observation.

People who live in glass houses...

Intresting, but I have never heard any reports of American police shooting rioters dead. Seems the guns serve a physological purpose rather than a practical one.

You'll notice that as soon as the National Guard rolled into New Orleans with guns and MPs, the looting immediately stopped.

Yes, it's a psychological effect, largely. An effect that cannot be achieved with the current crop of less lethal weapons.

Although I can imagine that the microwave pain beam the Marines are testing would probably be a terrific deterrent.

Well it would appear to me that for most in this thread it is simply become a venue to bash France. I guess it's that mother complex thing, America gained her independents thanks to France and so now America is going through the teenage years and feels they must rebel against the parental figure. I don't know, it just seems a country like France that has done nothing to piss off the world gets bashed by the Americans who have done everything to piss off the world. Just an observation.

People who live in glass houses...

Nothing to piss off the world? They have done plenty to do that sister. I guess you need to turn in that minor of history of yours.

<snip>

Well, with all the anti-american threads I think it's reasonable to allow americans to vent thier frustrations too.

Well, with all the anti-american threads I think it's reasonable to allow americans to vent thier frustrations too.

Perhaps, but I find there are very few posters here from France to begin with.. so not sure who they are grand-standing for.

Corneliu - I said "piss off the world" not "piss off the USA". :)

Corneliu - I said "piss off the world" not "piss off the USA". :)

They have done plenty to piss of the world. You still need to turn in that minor of history of yours. Apparently you learned nothing.

You'll notice that as soon as the National Guard rolled into New Orleans with guns and MPs, the looting immediately stopped.

Yes, it's a psychological effect, largely. An effect that cannot be achieved with the current crop of less lethal weapons.

Aren't cops in America armed anyway? Didn't seem to bother the looters at all. I imagine the looting stopped partly because aid came with the guard.

Although I can imagine that the microwave pain beam the Marines are testing would probably be a terrific deterrent.

These are scary (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/09/19/wirq319.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/09/19/ixworld.html)! But I doubt it will be a deterrent at all. No one goes to a riot thinking that they'll get hurt.

Aren't cops in America armed anyway? Didn't seem to bother the looters at all. I imagine the looting stopped partly because aid came with the guard.

Apparently, someone doesn't know that the New Orleans force fled.

Apparently, someone doesn't know that the New Orleans force fled.

That was only a hundred or so. Impressive, but not crippling.

Aren't cops in America armed anyway? Didn't seem to bother the looters at all. I imagine the looting stopped partly because aid came with the guard.

There's a difference between a few inept cops armed with pistols, and military soldiers armed with M-16s.

I bet the pain beam will be a deterrent to those who have been previously cooked with one.

That was only a hundred or so. Impressive, but not crippling.

They were powerless and everyone knew it.

Well it would appear to me that for most in this thread it is simply become a venue to bash France. I guess it's that mother complex thing, America gained her independents thanks to France and so now America is going through the teenage years and feels they must rebel against the parental figure. I don't know, it just seems a country like France that has done nothing to piss off the world gets bashed by the Americans who have done everything to piss off the world. Just an observation.

People who live in glass houses...

Algeria? Ivory Coast? I have a video of French soldiers opening fire on civilians in the Ivory Coast, happened just last year. And France is not the mother of America, the UK is. France is more of a sister, a very loose sister, who drinks alot of wine and gets invaded by the neighborhood bully, Germany, alot; that is when Germany isn't busy with Poland.

Nothing to piss off the world? They have done plenty to do that sister. I guess you need to turn in that minor of history of yours.
It says a lot that we just have to have this type of argument... It's "France" and "America" - they both have "national characteristics", both are "human-like" althought they comprise tens of millions and strech over very large areas. "France" did this or that. "America" did this or that.
What is more disturbing is the way in which history gets twisted for convenience as we speak. "France is bad", ergo "God punishes France". If it's not that, it is: "The US is efficient and nifty, lest for her enemies' actions", leading to "whatever is not exactly like the US (France) is going to crumble". And this, EVEN THOUGH THE USA HAS MET BIGGER CONTRADICTIONS SINCE EVER.

Consider this, please: Sarkozy is himself from an immigrant family. Before you jump on roofs.

It says a lot that we just have to have this type of argument... It's "France" and "America" - they both have "national characteristics", both are "human-like" althought they comprise tens of millions and strech over very large areas. "France" did this or that. "America" did this or that.
What is more disturbing is the way in which history gets twisted for convenience as we speak. "France is bad", ergo "God punishes France". If it's not that, it is: "The US is efficient and nifty, lest for her enemies' actions", leading to "whatever is not exactly like the US (France) is going to crumble". And this, EVEN THOUGH THE USA HAS MET BIGGER CONTRADICTIONS SINCE EVER.

Consider this, please: Sarkozy is himself from an immigrant family. Before you jump on roofs.

Did I say that France is bad? No I haven't. Don't put words in my mouth that I never stated.

There's a difference between a few inept cops armed with pistols, and military soldiers armed with M-16s.

What is it? They both are armed. They both will kill you if you piss them off.


I bet the pain beam will be a deterrent to those who have been previously cooked with one.

Indeed. As pepper spay, baton charges and water cannons are deterrents to those who have been exposed to them. Any yet riots keep happening. And people continue to go to them.

They were powerless and everyone knew it.

Thus proving that an armed response to a riot can be ineffective.

What is it? They both are armed. They both will kill you if you piss them off.

Indeed. As pepper spay, baton charges and water cannons are deterrents to those who have been exposed to them. Any yet riots keep happening. And people continue to go to them.

Pistols are nowhere as lethal as rifles. Pistols aren't fully automatic. And a pistol is barely accurate enough to hit someone across the street - while you can be hit by rifle fire from hundreds of yards away.

Like I said, there's a psychological element in there - backed by the reality that a rifle is extremely lethal.

They have done plenty to piss of the world. You still need to turn in that minor of history of yours. Apparently you learned nothing.

Who is the most hated country in the world Corneliu? The USA. I know, I know, we're all just jealous.. lmao. NOT!


Yeah, my history before the 20th century is a little rusty, not unlike your knowledge of politics in the here and now.

P.S. My minor was in modern history. :p

Thus proving that an armed response to a riot can be ineffective.

Arggh!!! There's a difference between Police and military. Police is designed to keep order. The military shoots to kill when aggitated. The people are less willing to go up against military soldiers than they are police.

Who is the most hated country in the world Corneliu? The USA. I know, I know, we're all just jealous.. lmao. NOT!

You like to get your jabs in at the US don't you? Guess what? I! Don't! Care! I already know you don't like us. That is why I take what you say with a grain of salt. Why don't you stop bashing the US for a change and take a very close look at us.

Yeah, my history before the 20th century is a little rusty, not unlike your knowledge of politics in the here and now.

Who said anything about pre-20th Century? I guess you forgot about Algeria or any other French Colony like oh say... Vietnam?

P.S. My minor was in modern history. :p

*yawns* See previous statement.

Why don't you stop bashing the US for a change and take a very close look at us.


I have, that's the problem. You use to be at least some what the good guys. Bush's total departure from American foreign policy that had reigned supreme in your country for over a 100 years was nothing short of radical and short sighted. He adopted the PNAC think tank papers (now known as the Bush doctrine) which even his own father called insane. Believe me, it wasn't always like this. Simple fact is America has become the greatest danger to world peace & security. The ONLY hope you have is to return to international laws of self defense and do away with at once the doctrine of preemption, I think it's safe to say now you got it wrong! Not until America returns to pre-Bush doctrine will the world be safe from America.

I have, that's the problem. You use to be at least some what the good guys. Bush's total departure from American foreign policy that had reigned supreme in your country for over a 100 years was nothing short of radical and short sighted. He adopted the PNAC think tank papers (now known as the Bush doctrine) which even his own father called insane. Believe me, it wasn't always like this. Simple fact is America has become the greatest danger to world peace & security. The ONLY hope you have is to return to international laws of self defense and do away with at once the doctrine of preemption, I think it's safe to say now you got it wrong! Not until America returns to pre-Bush doctrine will the world be safe from America.

Comic genius!

I have, that's the problem. You use to be at least some what the good guys. Bush's total departure from American foreign policy that had reigned supreme in your country for over a 100 years was nothing short of radical and short sighted. He adopted the PNAC think tank papers (now known as the Bush doctrine) which even his own father called insane. Believe me, it wasn't always like this. Simple fact is America has become the greatest danger to world peace & security. The ONLY hope you have is to return to international laws of self defense and do away with at once the doctrine of preemption, I think it's safe to say now you got it wrong! Not until America returns to pre-Bush doctrine will the world be safe from America.

Funny, I thought I heard all the speeches about WMD and regime change during the Clinton Administration - especially from Bill himself and Madeleine Albright.

If we're the greatest danger to world peace and security, I'm sure you'll find a way to blame the French riots on Bush. I think the real reason you make light of the French riots is because you can't blame it on Bush.

From the best ways to supress a riot to Stephistans obsession with Bush. How I love the NS general.

Funny, I thought I heard all the speeches about WMD and regime change during the Clinton Administration - especially from Bill himself and Madeleine Albright.

If we're the greatest danger to world peace and security, I'm sure you'll find a way to blame the French riots on Bush. I think the real reason you make light of the French riots is because you can't blame it on Bush.

Nope, the riots in France are not the fault of the US, and sorry for going off topic.

Yep, talk is cheap when the story is good. Note Clinton didn't go to war with Iraq, there were no grounds. Although I'll agree that Madeleine Albright was a real bitch. She made sure that Saddam had no incentive to cooperate. If I recall she said "Nothing Saddam could do would ever make the USA lift sanctions" I'm paraphrasing, but that was basically what she said.

After the Gulf war with Bush Sr. they just thought the people would over-throw Saddam, they even made them promises of help, which they reneged on, although that one was the fault of Bush Sr. Much to their shock and probably amazement it only made Saddam stronger. They didn't see that one coming.

None the less, preemptive war is the last refuge to the immoral and incompetent.

I will now leave this thread, as I do not wish to hijack it.

Funny, I thought I heard all the speeches about WMD and regime change during the Clinton Administration - especially from Bill himself and Madeleine Albright.

This is the part that people keep forgetting. Everytime I bring this up is don't bring Clinton into it. I wish people will actually study history for once instead of thinking they know it all.

If we're the greatest danger to world peace and security, I'm sure you'll find a way to blame the French riots on Bush. I think the real reason you make light of the French riots is because you can't blame it on Bush.

I wouldn't put it past her.

Yep, talk is cheap when the story is good. Note Clinton didn't go to war with Iraq, there were no grounds.

There were plenty of grounds to go back into Iraq back during the Clinton Years. They were the same sort of grounds that Bush used to go into Iraq.

Although I'll agree that Madeleine Albright was a real bitch. She made sure that Saddam had no incentive to cooperate. If I recall she said "Nothing Saddam could do would ever make the USA lift sanctions" I'm paraphrasing, but that was basically what she said.

For which she should've been canned but wasn't.

After the Gulf war with Bush Sr. they just thought the people would over-throw Saddam, they even made them promises of help, which they reneged on, although that one was the fault of Bush Sr. Much to their shock and probably amazement it only made Saddam stronger. They didn't see that one coming.

That's because the vaunted General Swartzkaph let Saddam fly their choppers. Not to mention we had no backing from anyone to support what they were doing so the plan that was supposed to take affect, didn't happen.

None the less, preemptive war is the last refuge to the immoral and incompetent.

Oh horseshit.

I will now leave this thread, as I do not wish to hijack it.

Bye bye. So long! Farewell.

There were plenty of grounds to go back into Iraq back during the Clinton Years. They were the same sort of grounds that Bush used to go into Iraq.

Let's reprise what our leaders had to say on Iraq.

First, here's the President:

"If he refuses or continues to evade his obligations through more tactics of delay and deception, he and he alone will be to blame for the consequences. … Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction…? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal. And I think every one of you who's really worked on this for any length of time believes that, too."

Here is the Vice President:

"If you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, how many people is he going to kill with such weapons? He's already demonstrated a willingness to use these weapons. He poison-gassed his own people. He used poison gas and other weapons of mass destruction against his neighbors. This man has no compunction about killing lots and lots of people. So this is a way to save lives and to save the stability and peace of a region of the world that is important to the peace and security of the entire world."

Here's the hitch: That was Clinton and Gore in 1998, not Bush and Dick Cheney in 2002.

Oops. How soon Liberals forget... :rolleyes:

Oh. Then it means America has a revolution every fucking hour.
Unlike France, America does not have riots 3 plus times a month.
We only have them once in a while, like once every 10 to 12 years. France has them 3 times a month.
France is badly in need of a revolution.

Let's reprise what our leaders had to say on Iraq.

First, here's the President:

"If he refuses or continues to evade his obligations through more tactics of delay and deception, he and he alone will be to blame for the consequences. … Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction…? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal. And I think every one of you who's really worked on this for any length of time believes that, too."

Here is the Vice President:

"If you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, how many people is he going to kill with such weapons? He's already demonstrated a willingness to use these weapons. He poison-gassed his own people. He used poison gas and other weapons of mass destruction against his neighbors. This man has no compunction about killing lots and lots of people. So this is a way to save lives and to save the stability and peace of a region of the world that is important to the peace and security of the entire world."

Here's the hitch: That was Clinton and Gore in 1998, not Bush and Dick Cheney in 2002.

Oops. How soon Liberals forget... :rolleyes:

Thank you very much. I'm so glad that someone is up on their history. :)

You sir/ma'am get a cookie

*hands you a dozen cookies*

Unlike France, America does not have riots 3 plus times a month.
We only have them once in a while, like once every 10 to 12 years. France has them 3 times a month.
France is badly in need of a revolution.

Are you just being an idiot again? Or is this your attempt at comic genius?

You do realise the about half of the riots in the 20th C in the world occured in the US don't you?

France is not America.
Why is it that on every english speaking forum I go, they talk about France and they compare it with the USA. Is that because France has become USA's number one enemy? Over here, we don't care so much about the US and we certainly don't consider the US as the number one enemy. Sure we burn McDonalds and we boycott Cocacola tm but that's because it's crap. We still listen to american music and watch hollywood movies (those which are good that is, not the crap). Can we end this senseless animosity please? Oh yes there is the irak war. The coward french stood against Bush on that one. Like Russia, Germany, China and now Spain. Get over it. The US is as much crap as France. Stupid morons waving flags, proud of their shit.

France is not America.
Why is it that on every english speaking forum I go, they talk about France and they compare it with the USA. Is that because France has become USA's number one enemy? Over here, we don't care so much about the US and we certainly don't consider the US as the number one enemy. Sure we burn McDonalds and we boycott Cocacola tm but that's because it's crap. We still listen to american music and watch hollywood movies (those which are good that is, not the crap). Can we end this senseless animosity please? Oh yes there is the irak war. The coward french stood against Bush on that one. Like Russia, Germany, China and now Spain. Get over it. The US is as much crap as France. Stupid morons waving flags, proud of their shit.

That's because France was inbed with Saddam Hussien as was Russia. China never really stood against us. Germany was wavering. Russia opposed it because of oil deals. Not to mention the fact that they sold GPS jammers to Iraq (a violation of UN Resolutions) and it did Iraq no good.

And we are glad that we are not France. We boycott French products for supporting Saddam Hussein. :D

France is not America.
Why is it that on every english speaking forum I go, they talk about France and they compare it with the USA. Is that because France has become USA's number one enemy? Over here, we don't care so much about the US and we certainly don't consider the US as the number one enemy. Sure we burn McDonalds and we boycott Cocacola tm but that's because it's crap. We still listen to american music and watch hollywood movies (those which are good that is, not the crap). Can we end this senseless animosity please? Oh yes there is the irak war. The coward french stood against Bush on that one. Like Russia, Germany, China and now Spain. Get over it. The US is as much crap as France. Stupid morons waving flags, proud of their shit.

Probably because during the whole Katrina mess, the French press made hay about how they were so much better than the US.

Oh, and after this stuff, good luck on getting Le Pen elected.

Are you just being an idiot again? Or is this your attempt at comic genius?

You do realise the about half of the riots in the 20th C in the world occured in the US don't you?
Actually that statement of yours has no basis in the reality of the 20th century.

It also ignores the fact that even in the 20th century, particularly the 80's and 90's the French seem to have been having riots every single week for some reason or other.
Not to mention all the riots in the third nations like africa and latin america.
The US knows how to address the concerns of the rioters so that they don't come back and riot for the same reasons. In France, they are constantly rioting over the same exact reasons. Why? Could it be that the French government ignores the very reasons that caused the people to riot in the first place, whereby setting the stage for more riots later on?

In the US, riots are used to bring attention to problems that the rest of the nation, including the government, are blind to. In the current ones in France, that is not the case. France has a long history of ignoring the problems of its immigrant and poor communities.

Unlike France, the last riot in America (in Ohio) was over something as inane as police brutality. An issue that America is still working to fix.
In France, the riots are more about unfairness, marginalization, and open racism on the part of the French government than anything else.

Probably because during the whole Katrina mess, the French press made hay about how they were so much better than the US.

Oh, and after this stuff, good luck on getting Le Pen elected.
That and the fact that French response to disasters (and endemic social problems) in their own nation leaves much to be desired.
France has never been in a position to criticize the policies of ANY other nation on earth.

In the US they use the media to format the people. They pledge allegiance in school and they have religious people making sure nobody think too much. They keep you busy so you don't think too much and they limit access to education so you are happy with what you have. In the US the people think they will be rich. They have the american dream that never comes true but they keep believing it.

That and the fact that French response to disasters (and endemic social problems) in their own nation leaves much to be desired.
France has never been in a position to criticize the policies of ANY other nation on earth.
Blah, blah.

The French government has done a poor job of intergrating the immigrants, but now is not the time to talk of this. Right now, the riots are intensifying, and they are spreading across Europe. The riots have overran some police positions, people are dying, and much property has been damaged. My feeling is that these riots are so protracted that a few terrorist cells in France may make snapshot attacks under the cover of these riots. The French government should not rule out calling in military forces.

In the US they use the media to format the people. They pledge allegiance in school and they have religious people making sure nobody think too much. They keep you busy so you don't think too much and they limit access to education so you are happy with what you have. In the US the people think they will be rich. They have the american dream that never comes true but they keep believing it.

Obviously you've never been here.

In the US they use the media to format the people. They pledge allegiance in school and they have religious people making sure nobody think too much. They keep you busy so you don't think too much and they limit access to education so you are happy with what you have. In the US the people think they will be rich. They have the american dream that never comes true but they keep believing it.

Now this has got to be one of the most ignorant and idiotic posts I have ever seen. Congratulations sir on being so uninformed that it isn't even funny.

Blah, blah.

And this is a very immature post as well.

Now this has got to be one of the most ignorant and idiotic posts I have ever seen. Congratulations sir on being so uninformed that it isn't even funny.
Remember I'm a foreigner so I have a better light than you have inside your own country (that's what you told me).

In the US they use the media to format the people. They pledge allegiance in school and they have religious people making sure nobody think too much. They keep you busy so you don't think too much and they limit access to education so you are happy with what you have. In the US the people think they will be rich. They have the american dream that never comes true but they keep believing it.


How frustrating this must be for you-we are all just mindless cows. Yet we are still on top.

wow... to be so determined,yet so pathetically clueless.

Remember I'm a foreigner so I have a better light than you have inside your own country (that's what you told me).

However, what I said was right. What you are saying is wrong. Why is it wrong you may ask? Because I think for myself and I'm a religious person. I am not formated by the press. I barely watch the news anymore because it is the same crap on a different day. I hardly read a newspaper anymore for the same exact reason. I do my best to stay up on the hot button topics but that is about it.

I'm also at college getting educated. I'm also a busy person but I do think about current events.

As for the people, they can start out poor and become rich. Unlike some societies where you are born poor and you stay poor. Not the case in the US however you do have to WORK for it.

Remember I'm a foreigner so I have a better light than you have inside your own country (that's what you told me).

You are woefully clueless about our education system, as well as the opportunities here. We're far better at taking in immigrants than France will ever be. Even the illegal ones here do well.

So, go back to your socialist pipe dream. One that will never be attained. While I enjoy the fruits of the American dream that I have most certainly realized.

And this is a very immature post as well.
I was answering someone who thought that only in the US there is a separation of powers and a possibility to vote agains politicians in office. And I'm immature.

I was answering someone who thought that only in the US there is a separation of powers and a possibility to vote agains politicians in office. And I'm immature.

That and the fact that French response to disasters (and endemic social problems) in their own nation leaves much to be desired.
France has never been in a position to criticize the policies of ANY other nation on earth.

Care to show me in this post where he was talking about seperation of powers as well as politicians?

You are woefully clueless about our education system, as well as the opportunities here. We're far better at taking in immigrants than France will ever be. Even the illegal ones here do well.

So, go back to your socialist pipe dream. One that will never be attained. While I enjoy the fruits of the American dream that I have most certainly realized.
American dream - world nightmare.
Keep up dreaming, but be aware the wake up will be painful.

American dream - world nightmare.
Keep up dreaming, but be aware the wake up will be painful.

Grow up and stop listening to rubbish about the United States.

Care to show me in this post where he was talking about seperation of powers as well as politicians?

Sure. Post 272:

And so much for the French model of governance supposedly being the best model of democracy in the world. I think America has them beat there too. That's probably because the American government is much much more flexible than any of the European, latin american, african, or asian governments are. Such that if there was a change in society that required a change in laws or in the government, to get the change in other nations, you have violently oust the government. Fortunately, in America, you need no such thing cause we have this little thing in the Constitution that says if you don't like the way things are run:
1. You vote out the pols or you can remove them: a. President by impeachment, b. Supreme Justices by impeachment, c. members of Congress by recall.
2. You can always change the constititution itself if you can get a lot of the right people to agree with you.
3. And preceding all that, you always have the right protest no matter what your reason for protesting is.

American dream - world nightmare.
Keep up dreaming, but be aware the wake up will be painful.

How is my success a world nightmare? And no, there won't be a painful wakeup.

Just imagine - if the US falls, economically or militarily, it's going to take the rest of the world economy with it.

A few billion people would starve to death in the first year alone.

Hope you like your socialism with starved corpses. Oh, but that's traditional, isn't it?

Sure. Post 272:

But that wasn't what you quoted and that was what I was calling you on.

But that wasn't what you quoted and that was what I was calling you on.
So?

Dear lord, just shoot them and have it over with.

How is my success a world nightmare? And no, there won't be a painful wakeup.

Just imagine - if the US falls, economically or militarily, it's going to take the rest of the world economy with it.

A few billion people would starve to death in the first year alone.

Hope you like your socialism with starved corpses. Oh, but that's traditional, isn't it?
Gone to Irak recently? Or to Tadjikistan? Can you explain to me how does the world economy work? Where are the stuff produced and where are they consumed?

Gone to Irak recently? Or to Tadjikistan? Can you explain to me how does the world economy work? Where are the stuff produced and where are they consumed?

My father has been to IRAQ! A few posters on here have been or are serving in Iraq. They'll tell you a different story that what is being reported by the Press.

My father has been to IRAQ! A few posters on here have been or are serving in Iraq. They'll tell you a different story that what is being reported by the Press.
Nice. Where are they?

Nice. Where are they?

Whitier-- is currently there. My father is at home and doesn't play this game.

Whitier-- is currently there. My father is at home and doesn't play this game.Too bad for your father. Nice for Whitier.
I'm not anti american. I just think this american dream is driving some people out of their mind and the kind of nationalism from the flag waving mob is making me sick.

Too bad for your father. Nice for Whitier.
I'm not anti american. I just think this american dream is driving some people out of their mind and the kind of nationalism from the flag waving mob is making me sick.

Ok!

Why is the American Dream driving some people out of their minds? Don't you want to see people succeed?

Too bad for your father. Nice for Whitier.
I'm not anti american. I just think this american dream is driving some people out of their mind and the kind of nationalism from the flag waving mob is making me sick.
Which Flag Waving Mob? This One?

Why is France Burning? Is America Next?

By Kamal Nawash

For the last two weeks, France has experienced riots the likes of which it has not seen in decades. In terms of destruction, the unrest is France's worst since World War II.

More than a thousand cars have been burned along with several buildings and hundreds have been arrested. For the most part, the riots are being carried out by the children of poor immigrants most of whom are Muslim.

Since the riots began, many have given their two cents as to why France is burning.
Some say this is a result of years of discrimination and deprivation, some say the riots are a function of a jihad whereby Muslims are trying to turn Europe into a Muslim continent, and yet others conclude that the riots are a function of decades of failed policies by France and other Western Nations.

While there is no one cause for the French riots, none of the "experts" have considered decades of failed immigration policies as the cause of the riots. France, similar to the United States and most western countries, has experienced decades of out of control legal and illegal immigration. France, similar to the United States, has responded with liberal and inadequate immigration enforcement that has caused the nations' demographics to change rapidly.

Nations like France, the United States and other Western Nations must come to terms with their immigration policies. They can either strictly control and limit illegal and legal immigration or be willing to accept that uncontrolled immigration will change the makeup, values and culture of their nations.

Unlike past immigrant generations who quickly assimilated, today's immigrants take much longer to assimilate if they assimilate at all. This is due to technology. In the past, immigrants were generally cut of from their mother countries which made assimilation much easier. Today, satellite technology brings movies, news and culture from an immigrant's home country to the living room of his adopted country via TV, the internet and other forms of media. In the United States for example, a Hispanic immigrant can live in the United States for decades without having to learn a word of English or adopt American culture. They can turn on Spanish only TV and Radio, read Spanish news papers and read government forms in Spanish. This phenomenon is taking
place all over the Western Nations.

Thus, to avoid the riots in France, Western Nations must look in the mirror and ask themselves if they are willing to accept the changes that come with liberal immigration policies. If the answer is no then Western Nations must control illegal immigration and adopt more manageable immigration policies.

Kamal Nawash is the president of the Free Muslims Coalition, an organization that was created to eliminate broad base support for Islamic extremism and terrorism and to strengthen secular democratic institutions in the Middle East and the Muslim World.

Kamal Nawash, 202-776-7190, 301-905-6438, president@freemuslims.org

For more information, visit our website at www.freemuslims.org

How is my success a world nightmare? And no, there won't be a painful wakeup.

Just imagine - if the US falls, economically or militarily, it's going to take the rest of the world economy with it.

A few billion people would starve to death in the first year alone.

Hope you like your socialism with starved corpses. Oh, but that's traditional, isn't it?

Actually, in resource terms only, considering that currently the world consumes 2 times more resources than it should in order to have a sustainable patern, and that if we were all like the US, we would need 9 worlds to support us all, and that your population is far from small, erasing your country would likely have a long term positive impact on the world, in resource terms (more food and fuel for everybody else :D )

13 days ago (as of Nov 8) The Chicago White Sox beat the Houston Astros in the US Baseball "World Series"

12 days ago (as of Nov 8) the Paris Riots began.

Coincidence? I think not.

The Rioters are obviously Astros fans and angry that France didn't let them have an extra 22 weeks of Holiday (or medical/depression leave) in compensation for the Loss. :eek:

Vive' la France...

who the hell cares about the french. what have they ever done for us except give us somewhere to send our soldiers? france has no allies, only interests. let them take care of themselves for a while.

They still rioting ? I thought France surrendered to the rioters already .

All lame jokes aside . Who's cars are they burning ? If you are already poor one of the last things you need to lose is your car . WTF did anyone consider that by NOT crushing the riots in the beginning...you know before they spread and became the new national pastime ...that the poor people in that area have been abandoned and left to the mercy of the rioters . Thats not what the government is supposed to be about . Its the worse kind of racism..it reminds me of the time when our Mayor bombed a house and then let the whole neighborhood burn down while the fir fighters and police watched . This time they are doing the same thing only to a whole part of the country .