French are good at rioting as well, it's something they take pride in
Just not great at fighting wars.
__________________ "In brightest day, in blackest night / No evil shall escape my sight / Let those who worship evil's might / Beware my power, Green Lantern's light!"
Interesting to me the French have an epic military history, including Napoleon occupying Berlin, yet one defeat to the Nazis and they are a bunch of white flag wavers who can't fight.
__________________
The masses of humanity have always had to surf.
The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to FireGilbert For This Useful Post:
Even in WW2 the fall of France was far from the walkover it’s regarded as today. In six weeks the French suffered 300k casualties and inflicted 180k on the Germans*. It was one of the most deadly and fiercely contested campaigns in history. But nobody was prepared for Blitzkrieg warfare in 1940, and any country neighbouring Germany was going to get steamrolled.
* For context, after 15 months the Ukraine War has resulted in 230k Russian casualties and 150k Ukrainian.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
The Following User Says Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
Even in WW2 the fall of France was far from the walkover it’s regarded as today. In six weeks the French suffered 300k casualties and inflicted 180k on the Germans*. It was one of the most deadly and fiercely contested campaigns in history. But nobody was prepared for Blitzkrieg warfare in 1940, and any country neighbouring Germany was going to get steamrolled.
Agreed, especially one already seen as a rival with contested border regions with you. And one that featured the site where German leaders had to sign a humiliating armistice 20 years earlier that Hitler was eager to flip the script on.
France only has France to blame. They occupied half of Africa for 300 years, and when the people of those former colonies immigrated to the mainland, none of them integrated. They all stayed in their separate ethnic neighborhoods of French cities. Even after two or three generations, they are still African in their own eyes, and the eyes of white French people.
Even in WW2 the fall of France was far from the walkover it’s regarded as today. In six weeks the French suffered 300k casualties and inflicted 180k on the Germans*. It was one of the most deadly and fiercely contested campaigns in history. But nobody was prepared for Blitzkrieg warfare in 1940, and any country neighbouring Germany was going to get steamrolled.
* For context, after 15 months the Ukraine War has resulted in 230k Russian casualties and 150k Ukrainian.
Also worth mentioning is that even though the government of France fell, the French did not stop fighting. French resistance had up to 400,000 fighters at it's peak and played an important role in many battles. There were also French soldiers scattered across Europe under the command of other countries.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to FlamesAddiction For This Useful Post:
France only has France to blame. They occupied half of Africa for 300 years, and when the people of those former colonies immigrated to the mainland, none of them integrated. They all stayed in their separate ethnic neighborhoods of French cities. Even after two or three generations, they are still African in their own eyes, and the eyes of white French people.
And now you have this.
More educated, liberal, and urban immigrants (like the kind Canada attracts) integrate into host countries more readily. France has drawn most of its immigrants from uneducated, conservative, and rural populations.
The French certainly aren’t models of tolerance and integration. And their economic model isn’t good at creating the kinds of of jobs that immigrants typically leverage to climb up the ladder into the middle class. But if you swapped everyone who has immigrated to France over the last 60 years with everyone who has immigrated to Canada, France would be having an easier go of things and Canada would have problems.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
More educated, liberal, and urban immigrants (like the kind Canada attracts) integrate into host countries more readily. France has drawn most of its immigrants from uneducated, conservative, and rural populations.
The French certainly aren’t models of tolerance and integration. And their economic model isn’t good at creating the kinds of of jobs that immigrants typically leverage to climb up the ladder into the middle class. But if you swapped everyone who has immigrated to France over the last 60 years with everyone who has immigrated to Canada, France would be having an easier go of things and Canada would have problems.
Not so fast. France kind of owes these uneducated, conservative and rural populations from the colonies they subjugated for hundreds of years. This is a result of their own damn foreign policy coming home to roost. Canada did not occupy and subjugate foreign lands for any period of time.
Like the great Russell Peters said when joking about the British finally leaving India and the Indian response: "We're coming with you!"
The Following User Says Thank You to CroFlames For This Useful Post:
You believe that mass, uncontrollable protests in a national capital that extend for periods of days should warrant the imposition of a state of emergency?
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Monahammer For This Useful Post:
You believe that mass, uncontrollable protests in a national capital that extend for periods of days should warrant the imposition of a state of emergency?
Ha let me get this straight they are burning the city down.
Not honking horns.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Yoho For This Useful Post:
You believe that mass, uncontrollable protests in a national capital that extend for periods of days should warrant the imposition of a state of emergency?
What's the alternative - peaceful negotiations? If these continue on at what point do you consider cracking down and imposing curfews? At what point does this become civil war versus protests?
You believe that mass, uncontrollable protests in a national capital that extend for periods of days should warrant the imposition of a state of emergency?
Not even close to comparable.
While the Freedom Convoy was disruptive, obnoxious and annoying, they were also peaceful and completely non-violent.
What's happening in France has escalated well beyond protests into violent rioting, looting and arson.
What's the alternative - peaceful negotiations? If these continue on at what point do you consider cracking down and imposing curfews? At what point does this become civil war versus protests?
No, no. This is not at all about what's happening in France. I'm picking on Yoho for his obvious failure to recognize his own doublespeak. He's adamant that Trudeau is a tyranical monster for declaring a state of emergency for protests in Ottawa but also adamant that Macron is an imbecile for not doing the same thing.
To your point, as far as I am aware, there is no unified front with which one could even contemplate holding negotiations. There's no leadership. Their goals seem multifaceted. So I think that cracking down to at least quell the momentum and destruction of the protests is essentially the only potential move to regain some control. Likely it also requires the government to oust the executive or executive to step down so an election can be held- this is the proper venting platform in a mature democracy. Or it's supposed to be. But protests of this magnitude clearly indicate that the leadership has lost it's mandate: in a political science lens, there are a few ways that this has occurred, not only in the loss of control and mandate over the rebelling population, but also a loss of ability to claim that you're offering physical security and safety to your population, which is ultimately the 1st duty of a government. Theoretically, unless they crack down brutally they have lost the monopoly of force and are potentially a failed state. But it would take time for that situation to be fully recognized, and much more destruction.
So my solution would be current president enforces martial law, protests are brutally put down, then either president resigns and an immediate election period is called or president is politically ousted. If not, the protests are likely to reignite or turn more organized.
No, no. This is not at all about what's happening in France. I'm picking on Yoho for his obvious failure to recognize his own doublespeak. He's adamant that Trudeau is a tyranical monster for declaring a state of emergency for protests in Ottawa but also adamant that Macron is an imbecile for not doing the same thing.
To your point, as far as I am aware, there is no unified front with which one could even contemplate holding negotiations. There's no leadership. Their goals seem multifaceted. So I think that cracking down to at least quell the momentum and destruction of the protests is essentially the only potential move to regain some control. Likely it also requires the government to oust the executive or executive to step down so an election can be held- this is the proper venting platform in a mature democracy. Or it's supposed to be. But protests of this magnitude clearly indicate that the leadership has lost it's mandate: in a political science lens, there are a few ways that this has occurred, not only in the loss of control and mandate over the rebelling population, but also a loss of ability to claim that you're offering physical security and safety to your population, which is ultimately the 1st duty of a government. Theoretically, unless they crack down brutally they have lost the monopoly of force and are potentially a failed state. But it would take time for that situation to be fully recognized, and much more destruction.
So my solution would be current president enforces martial law, protests are brutally put down, then either president resigns and an immediate election period is called or president is politically ousted. If not, the protests are likely to reignite or turn more organized.
