[Ford Prefect]

I think simply the fact that we can go back and fourth with conflicting details of French military history would indicate that its war record is really no different from that of any other country.

But it's really a matter of perspective. It seems popular in America to measure the "value" of a society by its military performance. This, in my opinion, is yahooism, and in terms of cultural contribution, France is a gold mine.

[vyper]

I'll say it again: This is France's Indonesia. If you don't understand, go try figure it out. Please.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by ngtm1r
The French are the reason you don't speak Arabic, you know.

I'm half Iranian. Who says I don't speak Arabic?

(I don't actually but that's more due to my dad's laziness and I'm rather annoyed about not having been taught it when I was young, when it would have been no effort to learn.)

Originally posted by ngtm1r
They stopped Islam back in the early Middle Ages after it managed to swallow up Spain.

Wouldn't deny it. However considering that back in the day Islam was actually a much more tolerant religion than Christianity that might not have been such a good move.

[Gank]

Iranians speak Farsi iirc

[icespeed]

more tolerant than Christianity? is that just because they never really got the chance to set up their own version of the inquisition and the crusades? people are the same everywhere, everytime, they use religion as an excuse to make war.

[Bobboau]

1000 years ago.

and they did, you know infedel can be translated basicly to heritic

[karajorma]

Originally posted by icespeed
more tolerant than Christianity? is that just because they never really got the chance to set up their own version of the inquisition and the crusades? people are the same everywhere, everytime, they use religion as an excuse to make war.

The fact is that the muslim of that time were far more tolerant of other religions than those religions were of them. For instance the muslims had no problem with christian pilgrimages to Jeruselem etc.

Sure there might have been some who would have used religion as an excuse to be extremely crappy to each other but if all we're debating is the point that the French stopped the spread of Islam then considering the two religions at that time it was a case of a repressive religion stopping the spread of a less repressive (not to mention better educated) one.

Originally posted by Gank
Iranians speak Farsi iirc

I was mearly making light of the fact that just cause I list London as my location it's rather dangerous to assume what ethnicity I have (or what languages I speak). I'd bet serious money that ngtm1r wouldn't have written things quite the same way if he had been in posession of that piece of information

Besides I know for a fact that in addition to other languages my dad could speak arabic (which is why I'm somewhat annoyed I wasn't taught when I was young).

[Mongoose]

The Islamic caliphate was once the most technically and culturally advanced empire in the world.  I heard stories of Muslims using a building for services on Friday and then allowing Mass to be held on Sunday.  Where did things go wrong...

[NGTM-1R]

They wanted to stay back there in the 14th and 15th Century. The rest of the world didn't. Instant schism.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Originally posted by Bobboau
the french of today are not the french of pre-ww1

neither is anyone else younger than 90.

[Sandwich]

Hey, Venom - good to see ya around again.

Originally posted by Nico
Disregarding of the side, we've crushed ... anybody who attacked us. ...There's one way to protect people from armed groups: you destroy those groups... We kill any that will try and hurt our... people. ***** about that.

Ironic... that could be applied to what Israel does against terrorists. But when we do it, it's "wrong". Gotta love the double standards rampant in the world today.

[aldo_14]

The criticism against Israel has always been that it's ineffective and (more importantly) disproportionate, though.  Not wishing to start another argument here, but the criticism is aimed* around the effects on civillians and the resulting social (political?) fallout which can serve to strengthen anti-Israeli / Jewish sentiment and thus the extremist groups cause.

If the French response is proportionate, it's ok.  Were they to, for example, try and remove the Ivorian government, it'd probably be going beyond the bounds of proportionality.

*EDIT; at least from me and most moderate people.  I wouldn't have any objections to the Israeli strategy if it worked, but I don't think it does, particularly within an international context.

[Genryu]

Hmmmmm....
/me is forced to see that Sandwich had a point.
Personally, my main problem with the Israelian as of now is Sharon. Before the guy there were at least TALKS with the Palestinians. Now, it's reduced to bombarding the leaders while they're in cities. If he wants to off them that much, call the snipers. At least, no one will ***** about killed civilians, which, be it in Irak, Isreal, or where ever else, is the main thing people ***** about.

[aldo_14]

Well, I don't like Sharon atall, and I don;t think there will be a chance of peace whilst he is in power.  I do understand one of the key problems with regards to peace-talks / ceasefires, though - namely that there is a disparate group of nutters out there, and it's been proven very difficult to get all of them to obey a ceasefire at the same time.

But, er, this is risking creating another Israel - Palestine debate thing, and history has shown those are never resolved .  

So, back on topic - if France restrict any use of their troops to being to protect and evac the foreign / french citizens being threatened, it's ok.  If it's attacking military targets which have attacked the peacekeepers (as they were initially), then it's justifiable within self defence.  If it extends to attacking unarmed mobs then it's probably only justifiable as the last resort of self defense - i.e. no way to safely deter them or to evac.

IMO.

[Nico]

Weeeh! I managed to get my hands on a PC at uni! man, those are some crappy things
Anyway:

Originally posted by Sandwich
Hey, Venom - good to see ya around again.



Ironic... that could be applied to what Israel does against terrorists. But when we do it, it's "wrong". Gotta love the double standards rampant in the world today.

Yeah, but we ( Fench ) never really condemned Israel actions, afaik ( one drunk guy just called it a ****ty little country, once ).
It's different coz in our case, it's once in ten years, for Israel, it's once a week you hear about military actions and stuff. Mind you, I don't care what either Palestinians or Israelians do, they just don't make any sense, either in action or in words ( ex: last week, I heard a Palestian representative criticizing that wall of yours, coz it separated them from Israel, making them unknwon people, and therefore turning them into enemies. But that wall was made coz they were considered as enemies in the first place ). Then Sharon decides to clear the... Gazaa sp) strip, and people ( both israelians AND Palestinians... ) start complaining that it's a move to seize another part ( don't remember the name, I recall something like Geor...jor... bah, whatever ) even stronger. So one gives, and the other wants more. And regardless of anything, they all happily keep bombing each other to high heaven. So no, I don't think it's quite comparable with France, coz if there's one thing you can't deny, it's that France has always tried to get through crisis w/o using weapons. Sometimes they failed, obviously ( the colonian wars, Indochina, first half of the Algeria conflict ), and sometimes they succeeded. But, at least nowadays, ALWAYS will France leave room for peaceful talks to try and ease situations. ALWAYS.
That aside, there's a funny thing: Chirac said that the current Ivorian government was on his way to become a totalitarian country, to which the Ivory president ( Bagbo, no idea how it's spelled ) responded, saying it was offensing him. Why didn't we reply that bombarding us offensed us too?

[Bobboau]

I've asked this a few times before without answer, when is the next israeli election?

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Bobboau
I've asked this a few times before without answer, when is the next israeli election?

It's not really an answer, but I think the last elections were Jan 2003.  So something like 2007, maybe?

[Sandwich]

Yeah, the 2003 elections were early elections. Previously they were in 2001.