An Ode to Chirac

[Fake Boris]

Well, Chirac passed a law regarding the Armenian genocide, which made it criminal to deny it.

Most commentators saw it as a toughening against Turkey, but this article makes me wonder. Perhaps Chirac passed the law knowing that Turkey would join eventually, anyway... That in some way, he saw it as a personal testament that would 'help' Turkey accept its history, in the long run (and thus paradoxically ease its entry into the EU) ?

I have a Turkish friend, who's actually very cultured and open minded. He's only learned recently that the Armenian genocide happened. Apparently, Turkish schools pass it as a minor civil disturbance or something to that effect.

Hmm...

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by DanS


I don't like that aspect either (you would think that some are trying to create a modern-day Holy Roman Empire), but you have to admit that this negative evaluation of Turkey holds sway in much of mainstream European thought. It's not as if the likes of Le Pen are the only mouthpieces on this.

At first, Sarkozy tried to adopt a moderate stance, sweeping to the center. When he saw that (justified IMO) defiance against him was rising quickly in anything close to and left of center, he decided he'd be better to fall back on Le Pen's crew.

You know, he's threatened to fire journalists who were not covering his campaign as he liked, when he'd be president. I'd never vote for such a jackass.

[Colon™]

Originally posted by Victor Galis


Ironically, no one in this thread seems aware that he was suspended from his duties last week and is facing removal from office next month if parliament has its way.

I know he's refusing to resign.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Oerdin
When rioters (reguardless of race) are burning other people's cars, breaking into shops, and attacking police it is right to call them scum.

As usual, you're being a judgemental bigot.

Whatever is your opinion of them, that won't solve anything. No one with the slightest brains ignore that you can only solve the problem with a conciliatory policy that strives to address the structural problems of the ghetto. If you think that a politician's job is to appeal to the herd's sentiments with half-assed declarations void of any reflexion, well... you're being Oerdin, aren't you ?

[RGBVideo]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Sarkozy scares me

If you would've been a voter when Reagan was around, he'd have scared the crap out of you because you would've read what you should've thought of him from op-ed's instead of looking at what kind of a man he was yourself. I know this claim makes you pissed off, but I can't think of a more diplomatic way to put it without you tuning out from what I'm saying because of boredom.

Seriously, take a look at what the guy has said and compare that to what the guy has done before you get all hysterical from typical election-related spin.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
tony judt, feh. If Tony judt doesnt like Royal or Sarkosy, those are plus points in my book.

First, attributing French social stats to Chirac are silly, given that A. That differential began long before Chirac, and is in part attributable to deeper social differences B. Is just as large for other euro states C. May not be sustainable on Frances part

Judt didn't attribute social stats to Chirac. Judt simply stated that the rhetoric that France is in some terrible state seems overblown given the reality.

2. Yeah, Chirac said nice things about Turkey. Did that work? Was it effective in getting Turkey into the EU?

Given that there are two dozen countries in the EU, all of whom need to agree, its no kidding that Chirac alone could not move the EU by himself. And Turkey is certainly closer to membership now than 12 years ago, so obviously Chirac did do something, if only stand by the principle, which matters.

3. Ditto his support for Europe. Was the EU constitution passed?

At least they tried. Besides, whether that particulalr documnet should have passed or not is a far more involved question.

4. Sarkos admiration for the US seems to go well beyond its growth rates, and economic policies, important though those are (and as much as Judt dislikes them) Sarko has strongly advocated integration minorities. As he has made clear, the term "racaille" was used by a north african banlieue dweller, it was used for law breakers, not as an ethnic term.

Except that all the "law breakers" at that moment were minority youths. And the minority community itself certainly believed that Sakorsky was talking about them. As for integration, what has Sakorsky done as interior minister besides having that group come to despise him? Made their lives better? nope.

5. I see no strong evidence that Royal will be more anti-US than Chirac was. Some of her rhetoric on Iran seems to go in quite the opposite direction.

Since when is being anti-Iran equal being pro-US???? Wwarped logic warning....

6. I suspect Mr Judts strong hostility to US policy in the ME, and to Israel, colors his remarks.

Cyclotorn already covered this one.

[DanS]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Well, Chirac passed a law regarding the Armenian genocide, which made it criminal to deny it.

What a douchebag.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by DanS
I don't like that aspect either (you would think that some are trying to create a modern-day Holy Roman Empire), but you have to admit that this negative evaluation of Turkey holds sway in much of mainstream European thought. It's not as if the likes of Le Pen are the only mouthpieces on this.

I don't disagree, but I'm not fond of having a person embrace those ideals in charge, no matter how mainstream the views are.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by VJ
If you would've been a voter when Reagan was around, he'd have scared the crap out of you because you would've read what you should've thought of him from op-ed's instead of looking at what kind of a man he was yourself. I know this claim makes you pissed off, but I can't think of a more diplomatic way to put it without you tuning out from what I'm saying because of boredom.

No, it doesn't piss me off, because you are an idiot who thinks I only know about Sarkozy from Op-eds because it fits your own personal viewpoint.

Seriously, take a look at what the guy has said and compare that to what the guy has done before you get all hysterical from typical election-related spin.

So basically, even if he has said bigoted statements, he really doesn't mean it? He just likes pandering to racists and religion-ists and won't really do anything when in charge?

Wow... what a great advert for the man.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris

As usual, you're being a judgemental bigot.

As usual you are being an idiot if you think it is ok for people to burn other people's cars, to throw bricks through windows, or to attempt to light police on fire.

Do you want to know what will solve the problems with the North Africans? Jobs. You want to know how to create jobs? Liberalizing the economy, cutting the red tape, reducing taxes, and reducing the impediments to creating new jobs. Once these people have jobs they'll be to busy concentrating on saving for that new car or house or what not and they won't be sitting around all day imagining how unfair the world is. You solve social unrest by creating jobs and making people to busy working to burn other people's things in the streets all day.

You also solve lawlessness by coming down on criminals like a ton of bricks. Commit arson, break into shops, or attempt to kill police and you go to jail for an extremely long time then everyone else thinks twice about becoming criminals.

[Dinner]

That said Sarkosy has definitely engaged in religionists pandering to gain support in a tight election. I do think Turkey should join the EU, as I have said many times, if for no other reason then it will prove that moderate Islamic countries can indeed co-exist with western values. That of course means Turkey will have to continue to fight against religious extremism as they have for the last 85 years.

So who to vote for? Is Royale better then Sarkosy? My take is Sarkosy, even with the odd religionist pandering comment, is a better choice as at least he is proposing to liberalize France's economy. Royale doesn't seem to have only luke warm support from her own party and she doesn't seem to want to change much preferring to just mouth meaningless platitudes. At least Sarkosy seems willing and seems to have the force of personality to force meaningful change which will improve the economic conditions in France. Will he be a French Thatcher who turns a broken socialist system into a dynamic economy which offers hope? I don't know but he's saying many of the right things. One thing is sure and that is France's economy is broken and there is a reason hundreds of thousands of young educated French people leave for England and not the other way around.

[DAVOUT]

I have only contempt for Chirac. The last thirty years of his carreer were only devoted to petty political ambitions. He made possible by treachery the desastrous 14 Mitterand's years, followed by his lamentable 12 years. His credit for the Irak affair does not offset, by far, the total failure of his tenure.

[Solly]

Originally posted by DAVOUT
His credit for the Irak affair

You really are a loon.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Oerdin
I do think Turkey should join the EU, as I have said many times, if for no other reason then it will prove that moderate Islamic countries can indeed co-exist with western values.

Co-existence does not require association.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Doddler




You really are a loon.

I suppose you mean Tony Judt is a loon : He gave credit to Chirac (in the O.P.).