French Riots and the war in Iraq

[Melensdad]

For some of you this may come as a surprise, but I have no tolerance for the French.

I blame them for the war in Iraq largely because they could have sat down with Saddam and said something like "these Americans are serious, if you don't let the inspectors in and don't play nice with the U.N. then they are going to kick your butt down the block!" It would have been simple, but rather than go to Saddam and tell him in blunt talk they decided to wring their hands and blabber about. They could have made Saddam blink. Their miscalculation is why we are at war.

Well now, in a classic case of "what goes around comes around" the Muslims are tearing up France.

First let me lay the groundwork:

• France is a quasi-socialist nation.
• France has litter of tolerance for religion or ethics
• France has a corrupt government with corrupt labor practices
• France offers what we would call generous 'welfare' type benifits
• France opened its doors to Algeria and now 10% of the population is Algerian Muslim
• The majority of those Algerian Muslims practice their religion
• France insulted the Muslim community by forbidding certain Muslim clothing
• France does not encourage its immegrants to adopt its French culture

So we now see riots in France, 1500+ cars have been burned in the streets, countless stores looted, at least 10 police officers shot.

Why? Because 2 Muslim kids crawled into a train station and were electricuted as they were fleeing the police.

Well that is part of the story. The above groundwork lays out more of the reasons. The Algerians went to France to get a better life, but ended up being cast aside in France because the French are known for their arrogant culture and they didn't accept the Algerians. The Algerians didn't really want to adopt the French culture either. The Algerians have a high poverty rate. The Algerians feel insulted. The Algerians feel like they have religion on their side because the French nation cast off religious rule. The Algerians don't feel they are French for all the above reasons.

Could a similar thing happen here if we don't control our borders?
Could a similar thing happen here if we don't encourage 'melting pot' mentality.
Does anyone feel sorry for the French?

 

[LarryRB]

You at least have to give the French credit for their new designed army tank with six speed transmission.. One forward gear and five in reverse when they get serious..

 

[Melensdad]

You at least have to give the French credit for their new designed army tank with six speed transmission.. One forward gear and five in reverse when they get serious..

Actually I am very impressed with the French school system. They teach more foreign languages than any other school system so now the French can say "I SURRENDER" in more languages than any other nation.

 

[XeVfTEUtaAqJHTqq]

Very well said Bob!

Being a Canadian, I know first hand how the french can f'up a country. It also shows the importance of assimilating immigrants, When you get large populations of immigrants you can get situations like Quebec where they impose their minority culture on the rest of the country just because the politicians are too spineless (and corrupt) to stand up to them.

I'm glad I live in the US now. Only 2 more years until I can apply for US citizenship.

Here's a good story about the kind of stuff they do in Quebec:

>"Quebec seizes yellow margarine"
>
>http://www.canada.com/montreal/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=5951efe5-66da-46fd-a4d3-1e3a48d513bc

 

[Big Dog]

For some of you this may come as a surprise, but I have no tolerance for the French.

I blame them for the war in Iraq largely because they could have sat down with Saddam and said something like "these Americans are serious, if you don't let the inspectors in and don't play nice with the U.N. then they are going to kick your butt down the block!" It would have been simple, but rather than go to Saddam and tell him in blunt talk they decided to wring their hands and blabber about. They could have made Saddam blink. Their miscalculation is why we are at war.

Bob,

IMO.......the french weren't going to do that because of money. They were making too much from sales to Iraq and to do what you suggest would reveal so! After the war started we found out just how much the french and russian gov'ts/companies were profitting and why they made such stalwart efforts to disuade the USA from going in! Their miscalculation was greed.........!

 

[Doc]

Right on Big Dog ....but what I don't understand I how we did not know about those contracts before the war. And, why are they still getting the money from the oil production which was envisioned to help pay for this fiasco?

 

[OkeeDon]

My mind went all over the place when I read your topic-starter, Bob. I think you're going in the right direction (not liking the French) and have the final thought pretty accurate (they're getting what they deserve), but I found myself disagreeing with your analysis and some of your reasoning.

I completely disagree with your notion that the French are resposible for us being in Iraq. There was nothing anyone could have done to prevent us from making our preemptive attack. The Bush folks had made up their mind, and we were going, no matter what anyone did or said, or whatver excuses they had to make up.

The French DID refuse to help us in our invasion, but that was because we were threatening to cancel the legitimate oil contracts they had signed. There is truth to your statement that the French were also making money selling things to Iraq, but that was from long-standing actions to ignore or circumvent our sanctions, was practiced by dozens of nations, and had nothing to do with our invasion.

Many of your bulleted list points can be summed up by, "France has little tolerance for anything that's not French". They allowed the Muslim immigrants because they wanted cheap labor (much like we wink at the Mexican illegals). However, you are correct -- they want the cheap labor to stay cheap, to stick to themselves, and to go back home if they aren't working. That's the French, and the arrogance of it is why I don't like them. It's also what I don't like about simplistic morons in our country who say things like, "America, love it or leave it" -- it's the same kind of stupid arrogance.

The Muslim kids in France do want a better life, and, despite your comment about French "welfare" benefits, the Muslims kids are willing to work for it. As I understand it, the riots are because they can't get jobs, or they can't advance from their menial jobs despite their talents. I guess they're fed up with the French attitude. Their bad; they should have known the French were going to treat them like dirt; the French always do.

But, nit picking aside, getting to your final question, there are some lessons in it, for us. A similar thing could happen to us.

We are controlling our borders as well as we want to; agriculture and industry owners want the cheap labor. Historically, management tends to be Republican and labor tends to be Democratic. Labor leaders in this country don't want the cheap labor competition, so if you want border control, you'd be better off with Democrats instead of an administration that wants to grant even more amnesty. Our border control is exactly what our current leaders want it to be.

And, that can be a dangerous policy (I find most conservative policies to be short-sighted, shoot-themselves-in-the-foot, bringing on unintended consequences and designed to satisfy the greed of the moment). It can be especially dangerous if we exploit those workers and then ignore them. I'm not sure they would riot on their own, but many experts are concerned that Middle East terrorists will organize and lead our immigrants, taking advantage of the situation.

Solutions? Get serious about immigration policy and controlling our borders. Expand programs like Head Start and others designed to educate immigrant children. Create more job training programs and adult education programs, especially "English as a second language". Provide universal health benefits so no one has to worry about getting sick. Increase the minimum wage.

Oh, I forgot -- those are all programs that have been reduced or opposed by the Bushies so they can give tax cuts to the rich...

 

[Melensdad]

Bob. I think you're going in the right direction (not liking the French) and have the final thought pretty accurate (they're getting what they deserve), but I found myself disagreeing with your analysis and some of your reasoning.

I completely disagree with your notion that the French are resposible for us being in Iraq. There was nothing anyone could have done to prevent us from making our preemptive attack. The Bush folks had made up their mind, and we were going, no matter what anyone did or said, or whatver excuses they had to make up.

​

Don, just bear in mind that I am correct, your reasoning is wrong and we will get along just fine


The reason I feel so strongly about this is that we justified everything we did based on the lack of compliance of the Iraqi government. France had the ability to make Sadam 'blink' and they could have used their influence to get Iraq to comply with the UN resolutions.

IF Iraq would have complied, then there would have been no way for us to go into that nation.

 

[OkeeDon]

Right on Big Dog ....but what I don't understand I how we did not know about those contracts before the war. And, why are they still getting the money from the oil production which was envisioned to help pay for this fiasco?

We did know. We were arrogant enough to believe they would cave in because of who we are. Our people thought they could "appropriate" the oil industry, use it to pay for the war, and maybe ever forget to return it, later.

Those contracts involved not only the French, but the Germans and Russians, as well. It is my theory that those three nations did more than simply refuse to help us. I believe that privately, those three nations let us know that if we tried to take away their legitimate oil contracts, and use the money in some other way, they would go to war with us. I sincerely believe that the actions of the Bush administration almost took as to the brink of WW III, and that was prevented only because we backed down. Because we backed down, the French and the others are getting their oil money, and the American taxpayers are going deeper into debt in order to rebuild Iraq, while many of our own people are suffering and our infratructure is decaying.

I believe that eventually it will be discovered that the Bush folks have single-handedly done more harm to the United States than any other single administration in history.

 

[OkeeDon]

Don, just bear in mind that I am correct, your reasoning is wrong and we will get along just fine,,,

That was my first good belly laugh for the day! I DO love these discussions!

Now, read the rest of it, get your head straight, change your party affiliation and let me know how good it feels...

 

[Big Dog]

The French DID refuse to help us in our invasion, but that was because we were threatening to cancel the legitimate oil contracts they had signed. There is truth to your statement that the French were also making money selling things to Iraq, but that was from long-standing actions to ignore or circumvent our sanctions, was practiced by dozens of nations, and had nothing to do with our invasion.

The most important statement in your quote was the word THINGS! Yes, we knew of most oil, food and product sales, BUT what really mattered was the sale of conventional weapons. IMO......The most important issue for the french and russians to shadow was the profiteering of the sale these weapons, let alone the subjectivity issue of the sale of weapoms to Iraq!!

IMO, quite frankly F*** the french. The US should let them stand alone from now on. Let them get a taste of undeserved violance and watch how politically correct they handle it. We already know how the Russians do it. They go guns a blazing and deal with the repercussions if innocent loss afterward BUT they got a handle on of the situation! Like Dargo quoted in another thread, "there is no law in times of war" or something of that effect.

 

[OkeeDon]

IMO, quite frankly F*** the french.

The interesting thing, considering how differently we all view various events and actions, is that this is ONE thing on which we all agree.

 

[Melensdad]

Solutions? Get serious about immigration policy and controlling our borders. Expand programs like Head Start and others designed to educate immigrant children. Create more job training programs and adult education programs, especially "English as a second language". Provide universal health benefits so no one has to worry about getting sick. Increase the minimum wage.

-------

Now, read the rest of it, get your head straight, change your party affiliation and let me know how good it feels...

OK I'm going to change parties. I'll become a LIBERTARIAN (again).

As for your solutions, Hmmm. Head start was not designed for immegrants, but I would support any assimilation program that would get them to contribute to our society via education of the "Truth, Justice & the American Way" as defined in the old TV show SUPERMAN or even Leave it to Beaver. I am in absolute agreement we need to control our borders and get serious about immigration. I have no problem with immigrants, especially since I am the son of one of them! But I do believe that new Americans must adopt our culture, our language and our basic beliefs if they are to be successful and productive contributors. Minimum wage & universal health care have nothing to do with mind-set, attitudes, skills or desires of immigrants and is just your attempt to inject your ultra-liberal left wing radical nutball ideals into a rational discussion I'm not sure what types of job training we need for immigrants, if we have a logical policy of immigration then we will really won't have the needs for job training for immigrants. English as a second language classes should simply be required to enter the USA, the private sector & charities/churches would be better at providing these classes than the government, further if we go back to the key point you and I agree upon, that being a logical immigration policy, it could easily include the requirement of 'sponsors' and 'skills' just like many other nations require for admission.

 

[Dargo]

You know, I have very little sympathy for the French or for the Muslims there. I don't think I need to go into any of the reasons I have no sympathy for the French. However, as I am aware, nobody is holding the Muslims hostage there. If they don't like it there, I really do think they can go back from whence they came. I think if the French keep taking the destruction wrought from the hands of people telling them how to act in their own country, they may send the ungrateful misfits packing. I would have no tolerance for someone coming on my property of their own free will and then burning my property and creating havoc.

In the most simple terms, these Muslims are looking for the French to change their ways to accomodate them. Do you think the Muslim nations would change their ways and welcome Christians?! Personally, I don't see why people think a nation should bring them in and change their ways for them. If I didn't like the way that nation ran things, why in the hell would I go there?

 

[Big Dog]

why in the hell would I go there?

Infiltrate and destroy!

 

[OkeeDon]

Dargo, on the surface, I can't disagree with your lack of sympathy for the Muslim immigrants to France. I alluded to that when I said the Muslims should have known better; the French will always look out for themselves and screw everyone else.

However, without a single shred of evidence to support my opinion, I bet there is more to it than that. I bet there was some enticement, or at least encouragement, from the French, perhaps some promises made and not kept. To the extent this might be true, I sympathize with the Muslim youth, as I would with any group that has been duped and dumped.

Bob, of course I took the opportunity to extoll the virtues of the beatific programs embodied by the left. That's because they work, unless they're screwed up. Let me be the first to say that politics on the left often screw up the programs almost as bad as politics on the right. For example, welfare was a well-intended program that led to dependency. We can't blame the recipients for the dependency; they were duped (and now dumped) as much as the rioting youths in France.The same is true for left-designed housing projects; I much preferred Jack Kemp's prescriptions for assisted house ownership, and support Habitat for Humanity.

However, minimum wage is a program that has worked for all those with fewer skills and has been supported by both parties except when the Republicans pretend to kiss up to their right-wing business-owning members. Universal health care is simply a program whose time has come. I have done some research and believe that a single-payer system would save most businesses, who provide health insurance as a benefit, an enormous amount of money. Health insurance is breaking the backs of many companies; I bet it is not your favorite subject at your company. Both programs, along with education, work to the benefit of legitimate immigrants because it alleciates many of their concerns and lets them get down to contributing to our society and building the American dream.

 

[Melensdad]

Bob, of course I took the opportunity to extoll the virtues of the beatific programs embodied by the left.

That's because they work

Don, now you are just being silly.

I much preferred Jack Kemp's prescriptions for assisted house ownership, and support Habitat for Humanity.

Wow, you endorsed a Republican and a private charity in one sentence, almost sounds like a conversion

However, minimum wage is a program that has worked for all those with fewer skills and has been supported by both parties except when the Republicans pretend to kiss up to their right-wing business-owning members. Universal health care is simply a program whose time has come. I have done some research and believe that a single-payer system would save most businesses, who provide health insurance as a benefit, an enormous amount of money. Health insurance is breaking the backs of many companies.

Don, I'll differ with you on several issues. First I don't think any Republican would support minimum wage UNLESS he was under duress and was simply kissing up to the left as a polical necessity. Second, for every shred of illigitimate evidence that supports your claims of Minimum Wage being a good thing, I can provide you with an equal volume of evidence to say it is a bad thing.

As for insurance, that is actually my very favorite subject here at work. Well maybe not. But universal health care is. The LARGEST problem I see with health care is the LACK OF ACCOUNTABILITY that is involved with programs like insurance policies and especially universal health care. If you think about it, just a decade ago if you broke your arm you would get an X-Ray. X-Rays are cheap, they are effective. You end up with your arm in a cast. Now if you break your arm they send you in for a Cat-Scan, that is a multi-thousand dollar expense, it provides much higher resolution, takes longer, involves more doctors and the net result is you end up with your arm in a cast. As a patient, you don't care if they send you in for the expensive procedure, after you pay the $50 co-pay (or whatever it is on your insurance) the rest is "FREE" to you; in fact you spend the same but you get "BETTER" care, so you are really happy.

Universal care would make that problem worse and elevate it by many magnitudes. If it doesn't elevate it, then you end up with less responsive, lower quality health care like you see in Canada, Sweden, etc. There is no example of universal health care in the world that even remotely comes close to the quality and speed of health care that we have here in the USA.

Yes I will admit that health benifits are breaking the backs of companies. And it is an issue here. We are looking into several alternatives. But then again we are one of those businesses that covers not only our employees but also their children and their spouse. We provide prescription benifits too. That coverage costs my company about $200 per week per employee, we require the employee to pay less than $25 per week.

Dargo, on the surface, I can't disagree with your lack of sympathy for the Muslim immigrants to France. I alluded to that when I said the Muslims should have known better; the French will always look out for themselves and screw everyone else.

Strikes me that you hit the nail on the head with regards to the attitude of the French. I also do not know what they offered the Algerians, but while the French may have failed the Algerians, it also appears that the Algerians have failed the French. Anyone moving to a new nation should expect to adopt the basic tenents of the host culture and should not expect the host culture to bend to the wishes of the new comers. This is no different than when we all complain about the invasion of the City Folk into our rural lifestyles.

 

[Junkman]

I doubt that they offered the Algerian anything. I believe that they were allowed to immigrate to France as a result of Algeria being a French Colony in the 1950's and when independence came to Algeria, many of them felt that it might be better to leave than stay.

As for the comment that the French banned the Muslim religious garb, that was a result of the French banning any clothing that would have designated a religious belief. That law was passed to try to stem the tide of antisemitism that has spread across France.

 

[Dargo]

I just read where the French government is apologizing because a tear gas canister, fired by their police to quell a mob of criminal Muslims, landed close to a mosque. They fear that the Muslim community will be upset by that. WTF?! Am I the only person who doesn't care what people think of me when I react to being attacked? These groups of Muslims are attacking from inside mosques, just like in Iraq! Holy smokes! When a mosque is used as a staging ground for attacks, I really don't give a rat's rear if the place is even standing. From our experience in Iraq, it is obvious that Muslims use this "holy place" for whatever they please. I honestly don't have much care for "religious" people who want to kill anyone who doesn't believe what they believe. When Muslim "holy men" teach the killing of others and urge their people to riot, they are simply another criminal in my mind and their "mosque" is more like a gang house. To shoot at others, or throw molotov cocktails one minute, and then hide behind a religious shield the next just doesn't cut it with me. When a mosque creates and harbors criminals, I honestly think it should be a legimate target rather than some place to avoid at all costs.

 

[Big Dog]

I just read where the French government is apologizing because a tear gas canister, fired by their police to quell a mob of criminal Muslims, landed close to a mosque. They fear that the Muslim community will be upset by that. WTF?! Am I the only person who doesn't care what people think of me when I react to being attacked? These groups of Muslims are attacking from inside mosques, just like in Iraq! Holy smokes! When a mosque is used as a staging ground for attacks, I really don't give a rat's rear if the place is even standing. From our experience in Iraq, it is obvious that Muslims use this "holy place" for whatever they please. I honestly don't have much care for "religious" people who want to kill anyone who doesn't believe what they believe. When Muslim "holy men" teach the killing of others and urge their people to riot, they are simply another criminal in my mind and their "mosque" is more like a gang house. To shoot at others, or throw molotov cocktails one minute, and then hide behind a religious shield the next just doesn't cut it with me. When a mosque creates and harbors criminals, I honestly think it should be a legimate target rather than some place to avoid at all costs.

Brett,

Ahhhhhhhh, you don't sound very politically correct. You know the proper way to handle the situation it to do eactly what the french did, coddle them into submission. NOTTTTTTTTTTTTTT, IMO......time to use the Leopolds and the Kimbers!

 

[Melensdad]

WTF?! Am I the only person who doesn't care what people think of me when I react to being attacked? . . .
When a mosque creates and harbors criminals, I honestly think it should be a legimate target rather than some place to avoid at all costs.

Total agreement from me.

Insight riots, foment war from inside a mosque, church, synagogue or whatever and that is a target.

Fight from inside the same, and that makes it a target.

Take refuge inside and be protected by the same under a twisted veil of religion, then the structure, regarless of what religion has been twisted to protect the person, and the structure is now a target.

Now I'll also add that if my mosque/church/synagogue is preaching a reasonable message of tolerance and a violent nutcase runs in for protection then I am obligated to NOT protect that person who twisted the message. I may choose to negotiate him out of my religious building to save the structure, but I would not feel obligated to protect him since he is in fact a criminal. Further I would feel obligated to the state to help get this violent criminal into the custody of the state.


-----------

Regarding the idiotic French, they have an economic system that discourages jobs. The rioting thugs are basically unemployed punks who, if you look at their age/ethnic group in France, the unemployement rate is roughly 20%. Now with the French economic system, they need to embrace free enterprise, reduce their quasi-socialistic restraints and labor regulations (no chance of that happening) and unleash the power of the French economy (French - power : HA HA ). But hey none of that is realistic.

 

[Junkman]

The only time that I ever heard of the French government doing anything intelligent or rational is when the Japanese government decided to put a high tariff on French products. The French government in their ultimate wisdom, declared that all Japanese goods had to be inspected piece by piece at a location in the center of France. They assigned two inspectors and the cargo was not allowed to be unloaded until the docks were cleared of the previous cargo and was inspected. It only took about 2 weeks before the Japanese government changed there policy and removed the tariffs and restrictions. If our government would do the same and tell all the other governments of the world, that we will apply the same rules that they use to keep our goods out, we would either have a lot less imports or a lot more exports. China is a good example. They keep most American good from coming into the country and the few that they do allow in, they immediately copy and reproduce. It is time that we start playing the game by there rules.

 

[dzalphakilo]

I had to laugh because the other night on news while interviewing a French "goverment official", the possibility of bringing French troops in to "quell" the riots might be a possibility.

I couldn't help but think "so what" they'll lose.

 

[OkeeDon]

of course I took the opportunity to extoll the virtues of the beatific programs embodied by the left.

Don, now you are just being silly.

and is just your attempt to inject your ultra-liberal left wing radical nutball ideals into a rational discussion

And, you weren't? Give me a break. My deliberately exxagerated remark was specifically designed to counter yours; except, as usual, the left is more gentile and does not resort to name calling.

 

[Junkman]

Round 1...... OkeeDon

Dong.......

Round 2

 

[Melensdad]

And, you weren't? Give me a break. My deliberately exxagerated remark was specifically designed to counter yours; except, as usual, the left is more gentile and does not resort to name calling.

Don, if you go back you will see that I used a " " thingy to call attention to the fact that even I was admitting my remark was blatant exageration and silly.


Now back to the French . . . Junkman what you wrote about the Algerians not being offered incentives to come France is apparently accurate according to a news report I listed to. I gathered that many Algerian Muslims moved to France around the time of the end of the French rule of Algeria. Apparently also, due to a lack of assimilation by many of the Algerians, they have not been accepted by the French, their income is generally low, their unemployment is especially high, and the unemployment of the Algerian youths is even higher.

 

[Dargo]

...their unemployment is especially high, and the unemployment of the Algerian youths is even higher.

That is what I understand as well. However, I what would their employment rate be in Algeria? My guess is that it would be even higher.

Oh well, I suppose that the fact that I do not consider the destruction of other people's property and terrorizing people as a legitimate form of protest. To me, it is only criminal activity that is unlawful and should not be accepted.

P.S. I did note the "tongue in cheek" statements by both Don and followed up by Bob. I took neither's exaggerated comments as serious.

 

[OkeeDon]

And, the prize goes to Dargo, for being the only one among us who spelled "exaggeration" correctly (I pulled my frequent boner and used "exxerga..." and Bob took the safe route and didn't double either the x or the g...). Of course, I know better and I'll bet Bob does, too.

Bob, I interpret the little whistling guy as the one who knows he's guilty and is desperately trying to appear innocent...

 

[Dargo]

Thanks Don, but I certainly won't take any bow for my spelling. I am usually doing several things at once when I post here and am in too much of a hurry to bother with any spell checker. So, I'm positive you can go back to my posts and find plenty of errors.

 

[LarryRB]

President Bush has authorized the Joint Chiefs to begin drawing up a battle
plan to pull France's butt out of the fire again. Facing an apparent
overwhelming force of up to 400 pissed off teenagers Mr. Bush doubts France's
ability to hold off the little pissants. "Hell, if the last two world wars are
any indication, I would expect France to surrender any day now", said Bush.
Joint Chiefs head, Gen. Peter Pace, warned the President that it might be
necessary to send up to 5 marines to get things under control. The general
admitted that 5 marines may be overkill but he wanted to get this thing under
control within 24 hours of arriving on scene. He stated he was having a hard
time finding even one marine to help those ungrateful bastards out for a third
time but thought that he could persuade a few women marines to do the job
before they went on pregnancy leave.




President Bush asked Gen. Pace to get our marines out of there as soon as
possible after order was restored. He also reminded Gen. Pace to make sure
the marines did not take soap, razors, or deodorant with them. The least they
stand out, the better.