French generals cause backlash with 'civil war' warning

grassylawn

Deleted User wrote: »

The US is a global superpower, the only one for the moment at least. It can do whatever it wants to whomever it wants, militarily.

If you compare US foreign policy with that of previous Empires in history, it's pretty tame by comparison. I doubt China or anyone else would act with such restraint if they held the same level of power. They could have stayed in Iraq easy and taken the oil for themselves. They instead tried to facilitate a democracy and extracted the oil through commercial trade rather than outright theft. Yes it was nasty, ugly, and I don't support it. But let's not think they are the solitary great evil in the world.

Iraq offered them first preference access to their oil to try to avoid an invasion.

I think they invaded for the same reason I think they dropped a nuclear bomb on Nagasaki (after Japan had offered to surrender). They wanted to demonstrate strength.

It's all the fault of Newsweek. They called W's dad a wimp.

grassylawn

grassylawn wrote: »

Iraq offered them first preference access to their oil to try to avoid an invasion.

I think they invaded for the same reason I think they dropped a nuclear bomb on Nagasaki (after Japan had offered to surrender). They wanted to demonstrate strength.

It's all the fault of Newsweek. They called W's dad a wimp.

I find it astounding how liberal Americans forgot how bad Dubya was as president. They were pining over the fact that he offered Michelle Obama at the funeral of an ex-President. When you compare the actual substance of what Trump did versus was W did, old Donnie is not the literal Hitler he is portrayed by his enemies.

Overheal

Deleted User wrote: »

I find it astounding how liberal Americans forgot how bad Dubya was as president. They were pining over the fact that he offered Michelle Obama at the funeral of an ex-President. When you compare the actual substance of what Trump did versus was W did, old Donnie is not the literal Hitler he is portrayed by his enemies.

Nor was Obama but every president is put through the same lens to some degree or another.

Next up will be Biden for - I dunno, building highways?

AdrianBalboa

biko wrote: »

Damage control is being handled by media.

Conspiracy theorist rubbish.

Dyr

up for anything wrote: »

Happens everywhere.

All "“Part and parcel of living in a great global city" eh?

RulesOfNature

CelticRambler wrote: »

Context is everything ... :rolleyes:

Nothing unsettling about the part(s) of France I live/work in - it's pretty much the same now as it has been for the last fifteen years, but with more internet.

He meant Paris.

RulesOfNature

francois wrote: »

Cool anecdote

Its true. Places like Pakistan/India have repressed views on women and sexuality. Culturally in Pakistan, India and other such places the only women that have the same degree of agency and liberated views as western women do are prostitutes and whores. They carry over these cultural views when they immigrate to the West and that's why sexual harassment is so rampant - They simply view western women as prostitutes.

https://www.radcliffe.harvard.edu/news-and-ideas/indian-sex-life-and-the-cultural-control-of-women

https://www.news18.com/news/india/opinion-being-considered-a-white-whore-because-of-your-skin-colour-is-worst-experience-in-india-1563137.html

Dyr

58% of French people support signatories of Generals letter, and two thirds believe that they should not be punished for signing it

Seems like a small sample size for a country of Frances size but still: nothing to see, move along



https://www.lci.fr/societe/tribune-des-militaires-valeurs-actuelles-58-des-francais-soutiennent-l-initiative-des-signataires-2184708.html

RulesOfNature

grassylawn wrote: »

Afghanistan society was apparently doing pretty well before the US got involved. They got involved by arming wahibbi fighters who didn't like all the social progression. Bin Laden was one of them.

Not mentioned, but Iran was something along the lines of a secular republic before the USA and UK organized a coup. This time the religious extremists came in after a revolution against the shah who had been installed by the US and UK.

So they actually did return them to the stone age by your own view of it.

NO. This is pure propaganda from a few cherrypicked photographs.

To compare photos showing a tiny urban educated elite in Kabul and major cities in the 60s with modern images of Afghanistan as a whole is comparing apples to oranges.

To employ a crude but apt analogy; it would be like thinking that everyone in the US was at Woodstock in '69.

The was a very tiny portion of the population in the 60s and 70s who were 'western' in their dress and outlook, but the everyday life of those in areas away from major urban centres was basically the same in 1930, 1960 and 1990 and continues so to this day.

Throughout the 20th c. the vast majority of Afghans have been very poor, politically and religiously 'conservative' and dependent upon agriculture. Even in the major cities the 'Westernised' Afghans were never a majority.

There certainly was an educated, Westernised section of the populace, usually young people, who did face repression and whose subculture did vanish during the years of Theocratic rule, but it was a sub-culture, it was not mainstream Afghan culture and it did not reflect the lives of the majority of people at all.

Manach

Historically, the French military have had a more active role and more outspoken than say in the UK since the Revolution. The Fifth Republic is in essence General De Gaulle's creation, and he noted in an age of more homogeneous society the difficulty of governing France. In this modern France, as detailed by the book French Infatida, the fault lines are much more visible.

KeepItLight

Bambi wrote: »

All "“Part and parcel of living in a great global city" eh?

Don't forget about of all the food options and....uhmm..hm

grassylawn

RulesOfNature wrote: »

NO. This is pure propaganda from a few cherrypicked photographs.

To compare photos showing a tiny urban educated elite in Kabul and major cities in the 60s with modern images of Afghanistan as a whole is comparing apples to oranges.

To employ a crude but apt analogy; it would be like thinking that everyone in the US was at Woodstock in '69.

The was a very tiny portion of the population in the 60s and 70s who were 'western' in their dress and outlook, but the everyday life of those in areas away from major urban centres was basically the same in 1930, 1960 and 1990 and continues so to this day.

Throughout the 20th c. the vast majority of Afghans have been very poor, politically and religiously 'conservative' and dependent upon agriculture. Even in the major cities the 'Westernised' Afghans were never a majority.

There certainly was an educated, Westernised section of the populace, usually young people, who did face repression and whose subculture did vanish during the years of Theocratic rule, but it was a sub-culture, it was not mainstream Afghan culture and it did not reflect the lives of the majority of people at all.

This is an interesting assertion. My brief googling has not supported or refuted it. Can you provide sources?

My impression was from my viewing of the film Bitter Lake and photos shown to me by someone ages ago.

The idea that the Soviet Union was a progressive force there is at odds with my knowledge of that country otherwise. But everything is relative and iirc they apparently treated the country as a utopic project.

Manic Moran

RulesOfNature wrote: »

NO. This is pure propaganda from a few cherrypicked photographs.

To compare photos showing a tiny urban educated elite in Kabul and major cities in the 60s with modern images of Afghanistan as a whole is comparing apples to oranges.

To employ a crude but apt analogy; it would be like thinking that everyone in the US was at Woodstock in '69.

The was a very tiny portion of the population in the 60s and 70s who were 'western' in their dress and outlook, but the everyday life of those in areas away from major urban centres was basically the same in 1930, 1960 and 1990 and continues so to this day.

Throughout the 20th c. the vast majority of Afghans have been very poor, politically and religiously 'conservative' and dependent upon agriculture. Even in the major cities the 'Westernised' Afghans were never a majority.

There certainly was an educated, Westernised section of the populace, usually young people, who did face repression and whose subculture did vanish during the years of Theocratic rule, but it was a sub-culture, it was not mainstream Afghan culture and it did not reflect the lives of the majority of people at all.

I would agree with this, after having seen quite a bit of Afghanistan (Granted, not much of Kabul but the outskirts). Much of the country couldn't care less about Kabul, and indeed, most couldn't care less about the world outside their tribe or village. There is also no evidence of it having once been a thriving 1970s era civilization as we would know it. No glorious examples of then-modern 1970s construction or infrastructure which has since fallen into disrepair, unless they took the trouble to bulldoze it and then replace it with more crude construction.

There were certainly some impressive feats of engineering from the 1960s, such as the road from Kabul to Jalalabad which is simultaneously impressive, breathtaking and somewhat terrifying, or the Surobi Dam, but in the large scale, there seemed little evidence of any repression of 'modern' thinking or capabilities in the countryside where I spent most of my time. What you saw tended to be what always was.

CelticRambler

Manic Moran wrote: »

Much of the country couldn't care less about Kabul, and indeed, most couldn't care less about the world outside their tribe or village.

An interesting observation, and one that would apply almost word-for-word to France in the 2020s. Few people in provincial France care about Paris, and most have never been there, unless it was to change trains. Similarly, there are even today, pockets of people who have only the faintest notion of what goes on beyond their département borders.

But perhaps it is this parochialism that appeals to the only Afghans that I know - refugees I met shortly after their arrival, when they were being exposed to traditional music and dance as part of their re-settlement programme. Somewhat ironically, they're now regular voluntary participants in this activity, even though the average Frenchman hasn't the foggiest idea of how rich and vibrant is this aspect of his own culture.

Manach

Manach wrote: »

Historically, the French military have had a more active role and more outspoken than say in the UK since the Revolution. The Fifth Republic is in essence General De Gaulle's creation, and he noted in an age of more homogeneous society the difficulty of governing France. In this modern France, as detailed by the book French Infatida, the fault lines are much more visible.

True enough, although that''s not to say that France is unstable.

I spent a lot of time in the south of France when I was younger. I still visit whenever I can, since I have a few friends from that childhood who have married, settled down, etc. Take two families who are friends of mine, and also know each other, living in the same town near Montpelier. They'll march in the same protests but following different groups, they'll throw bottles at each other, shout and rave over the politics of the region... and on the weekend they'll meet for a bbq and be the best of friends.

That's France. They argue. They fight. And they find ways to coexist, and sometimes even become very friendly with each other, while also retaining interests in what we'd consider opposing viewpoints. On top of that though, is that they're nationalists. Not that they love the idea of France, since they still hold some weird allegiance to the States/Duchies that existed before France was formed, but against a foreign group, then they're very nationalistic.

I love the French. They seem so obvious and direct, but there's so many different layers behind their motivations.

The fault lines are visible, and there's a reason for that. It allows them to be passionate about everything... and honestly, while I cringe at the riots they have, i can't really fault them for the passion they bring to politics. Better that than the apathy that we see here in Ireland or elsewhere.

bfa1509

The French should do what they do best and surrender:p

Overheal

bfa1509 wrote: »

The French should do what they do best and surrender:p

Rest assured, nobody's made that outdated joke already.

francois

bfa1509 wrote: »

The French should do what they do best and surrender:p

Try reading a history book some time, who knows you may even learn something

tom1ie

KeepItLight wrote: »

Cretinous take, probably the single dumbest thing I've ever read on Boards.ie (and that's saying quite a lot).

People have every right to be disgusted at the political class for destroying their nation with multiculturalism for the sake of GDP.

But this is the problem isn’t it.
If we don’t increase our GDP and bring in more workers through immigration, we can’t pay the pensions we’ve promised ourselves.
So we need immigration to keep the economy going.

However how can you integrate different cultures together that are so fundamentally different without conflict?

It’s a problem alright.

Pronto63

tom1ie wrote: »

But this is the problem isn’t it.
If we don’t increase our GDP and bring in more workers through immigration, we can’t pay the pensions we’ve promised ourselves.
So we need immigration to keep the economy going.

However how can you integrate different cultures together that are so fundamentally different without conflict?

It’s a problem alright.

Highly highly qualified, highly paid immigrants are fine. They can work away, pay taxes, contribute - all good.

The problem is the large number of low wage immigrants, some who then become Irish citizens, who then apply to bring their large families in.

These people become a net drain on the system.

Low pay means they pay little or no tax.
They are then entitled to claim FIS/WFP as well as the drain on housing, healthcare and school places.

Btw I’ve worked in the immigration area for a number of years and have seen thousands of these applications.

Immigration needs to be much tighter.

Mike Murdock

tom1ie wrote: »

But this is the problem isn’t it.
If we don’t increase our GDP and bring in more workers through immigration, we can’t pay the pensions we’ve promised ourselves.
So we need immigration to keep the economy going.

However how can you integrate different cultures together that are so fundamentally different without conflict?

It’s a problem alright.

But as UCL have shown in the UK, between 1995-2011, Migrants from the 3rd World ended up taking more in benefits, £120 billion more, than they actually added to the tax take.

So Governments in Europe are following Fools Gold. It won't work.

And that is not even counting what will happen when automation starts taking jobs from blue and white-collar workers.

AdrianBalboa

Manic Moran wrote: »

I would agree with this, after having seen quite a bit of Afghanistan (Granted, not much of Kabul but the outskirts). Much of the country couldn't care less about Kabul, and indeed, most couldn't care less about the world outside their tribe or village. There is also no evidence of it having once been a thriving 1970s era civilization as we would know it. No glorious examples of then-modern 1970s construction or infrastructure which has since fallen into disrepair, unless they took the trouble to bulldoze it and then replace it with more crude construction.

There were certainly some impressive feats of engineering from the 1960s, such as the road from Kabul to Jalalabad which is simultaneously impressive, breathtaking and somewhat terrifying, or the Surobi Dam, but in the large scale, there seemed little evidence of any repression of 'modern' thinking or capabilities in the countryside where I spent most of my time. What you saw tended to be what always was.

It’s difficult for a country to develop its infrastructure when it’s constantly being invaded by imperialist forces.

tom1ie

tom1ie wrote: »

But this is the problem isn’t it.
If we don’t increase our GDP and bring in more workers through immigration, we can’t pay the pensions we’ve promised ourselves.

Those pensions will be gone by the time you retire, unless you're working in the Public service. Or the pensions themselves will be so small as to be essentially worthless. More people living in Ireland is not going to change that... now, lowering the cost of living, and other costs across the board, might.

o we need immigration to keep the economy going.

Actually, no we don't. We have an economy that is not labor intensive. It's a skills based economy. The need for labor rests with a few industries and none of them are necessary for our economy to keep going.

However how can you integrate different cultures together that are so fundamentally different without conflict?

It’s a problem alright.

Simple answer is..... that ship has sailed. In the past we could due to small numbers being involved as immigrants. Now, populations of migrants are increasing.. and there is little need for migrants to integrate. After all, the woke crowd are telling everyone that diversity is our strength. Multiculturalism is wonderful. Yay. Smoke that pipe, and ignore that it hasn't worked out anywhere long term (past 20 years), anywhere in the western world, without cracks forming, and unrest occurring.

The answer is in keeping the populations of migrants small, controlled, and limited by their visas.

Housefree

Housefree wrote: »

The extremists are bombing the middle east back to the stone age with the most sophisticated weaponry ever devised by mankind. Iraq/Afghanistan/Libya/Syria while supporting apartheid

A few lone wolfs on a suicide mission in the west after watching a drone strike slaughter a whole wedding party in some small middle eastern village is hardly extreme in comparison

But your right, can you deprogram US politics/generals?

Is this why the Japanese guy was beheaded in Dundalk?

Dyr

Deleted User wrote: »

Is this why the Japanese guy was beheaded in Dundalk?

There will always be an excuse and the excuse will always be some vague reference to imperialism.

The Yazidis were ethnically cleansed because like, George Bush or someone.

Muslims have a preference for creating theocracies that would be considered backwards 300 years ago in Europe because Rudyard Kipling and sheeeiit.

And so on and so forth

Danzy

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Is this why the Japanese guy was beheaded in Dundalk?

Not according to Islamic militants. It's way down their list, beneath apostasy, fornication, both sexes socializing, having equal rights, open homosexuality.

Islamists are verging on blaise about military intervention and past colonialism. That was done to Muslims being lax in their faith.

Some have to shoehorn in past colonialism etc to fit their own needs and agendas. It just means that they have to ignore the people attaching and their reasons, motivations etc.

Danzy

Danzy wrote: »

Not according to Islamic militants. It's way down their list, beneath apostasy, fornication, both sexes socializing, having equal rights, open homosexuality.

Islamists are verging on blaise about military intervention and past colonialism. That was done to Muslims being lax in their faith.

Some have to shoehorn in past colonialism etc to fit their own needs and agendas. It just means that they have to ignore the people attaching and their reasons, motivations etc.

People will pass the buck on to others. How would Muslims feel if people from India started bombing Islamic countries because of the Muslim invasions in the "distant" past? The time difference between imperialism (and now), and those invasions (and imperialism) isn't so great.

As was said... it's an excuse, and a rather flimsy excuse at that. Few peoples/cultures want to acknowledge what they (a collective group) have done in the past to other cultures, and take it for granted when nothing negative has arisen from those actions.

Even when it comes to US/Coalition actions in the M.East, it's still a rather flimsy excuse, since many Arab/Persian/Whatever nations have a long history of invading each other, and doing just as bad, if not worse during their time occupying territory. More excuses to justify a desire to strike out at external groups, rather than deal with the problems within their own culture.

Danzy

[Deleted User] wrote: »

People will pass the buck on to others. How would Muslims feel if people from India started bombing Islamic countries because of the Muslim invasions in the "distant" past? The time difference between imperialism (and now), and those invasions (and imperialism) isn't so great.

As was said... it's an excuse, and a rather flimsy excuse at that. Few peoples/cultures want to acknowledge what they (a collective group) have done in the past to other cultures, and take it for granted when nothing negative has arisen from those actions.

Even when it comes to US/Coalition actions in the M.East, it's still a rather flimsy excuse, since many Arab/Persian/Whatever nations have a long history of invading each other, and doing just as bad, if not worse during their time occupying territory. More excuses to justify a desire to strike out at external groups, rather than deal with the problems within their own culture.

Islam's key strength has always been imperialism and militancy were it's core command.

It allowed it to conquer from India to Spain in such a short time.

They remain key values.

Understandable given the region where Islam was created, the wellspring of Imperialism and Empire.

TomTomTim

Deleted User wrote: »

People will pass the buck on to others. How would Muslims feel if people from India started bombing Islamic countries because of the Muslim invasions in the "distant" past? The time difference between imperialism (and now), and those invasions (and imperialism) isn't so great.

As was said... it's an excuse, and a rather flimsy excuse at that. Few peoples/cultures want to acknowledge what they (a collective group) have done in the past to other cultures, and take it for granted when nothing negative has arisen from those actions.

Even when it comes to US/Coalition actions in the M.East, it's still a rather flimsy excuse, since many Arab/Persian/Whatever nations have a long history of invading each other, and doing just as bad, if not worse during their time occupying territory. More excuses to justify a desire to strike out at external groups, rather than deal with the problems within their own culture.

They are ironically completely western-centric in their historical views. The only time history matters to them is when the European is hurting the minority. All history outside of that is ignored.

Danzy

Danzy wrote: »

Islam's key strength has always been imperialism and militancy were it's core command.

It allowed it to conquer from India to Spain in such a short time.

They remain key values.

Understandable given the region where Islam was created, the wellspring of Imperialism and Empire.

Islamic societies tend to be very hierarchical with the men holding all the power. There have been some flirting with western values, where women are given positions of authority, but these women typically, are fanatical in their devotion to Islamic values. As such, tradition plays a key role, and since Islam is a militant faith, the tradition of strength above all other aspects remains the same. The expression of strength through warfare, conflict (whether direct or indirect), and the expansion of Islamic faith beyond their borders.

It's the reason I get so irritated by those defending Islam. As a faith, tradition (just as it was/is in Christianity) is incredibly important, especially where there are significant populations. Conformity is the rule. As populations increase, so too will the pressure to conform to the traditional values of Islam. While populations are minor, individuals will have more freedom to embrace aspects of western culture, while retaining the aspects of Islamic values that they approve of.