France in flames

Remove all ads!

I kind of figured that out. You'd have to get an asylum or citizenship quite quickly though since just being abroad won't prevent the authoroties from arresting you, especially if you'd be somewhere around the western world, but I'm sure you're well aware of that.

Funny that no one came up with this point earlier. I partially agree, if it becomes a massacre we efficently show that we're not better than China or the South American countries were military intervention is used all the time and the results are death tolls in the hundreds if not thousands. However waiting around and wishing this destruction to disappear or hoping that insufficent police forces can handle the situation is just not going to work, the military could support the police without taking charge of the entire situation.

 

I rather strongly disagree. Obviously, you don't want to try to use an armored division or artillery to maintain/restore order--that would indeed be a recipe for disaster.

However, troops (we do consider the US National Guard to be "the military", yes?) can indeed be used efficiently, effectively, and without mass casualties to restore order in extreme situations.

See: Brown vs. Board of Education and the 101st Airborne Division. Other examples include national guard presence in the Watts riots and the 1992 LA riots.

 

"Cos every cop is a criminal, and all the sinners saints..."

I meant the average policeman. And I did not mean it in a racist fashion. It's more the matter of who is considered part of the society and who is not.

 

National guard type of things seems like an even worse idea. You want to put a bunch of very average joes with military issue weaponry and to be honest here, not the most rigid of training or discipline to handle a riot consisting of the people these dudes thrashtalk during their dinner tables?

As Bruce Willis said, the military is a broadsword, not a scalpel and as I myself are saying, the military is there to kill the enemies of the state, not to kill dissension within the state.

 

A good example of this would be Iraq No mass casualties there, no sir

 

You realize that making the army an instrument of population control and allowing her to shoot your own citizens is the most direct road to totalitarism

 

Ah. I hadn't realized that violent rioting is considered "dissension." I also hadn't realized the army would be used to kill rioters--pardon, dissenters--rather than to control and contain them. My mistake.

No, it wouldn't be. Unless you want to claim that invading a nation and then fighting a protracted guerilla war within that nation is equivalent to riot control. I assume you don't wish to make that claim, as it would be a ridiculous claim to make.

You realize that the army would be operating under rather strict rules of engagement, would be under careful observation, and would be doing its utmost to avoid shooting people, yes?

Additionally, using the army when the police are completely unable to contain mass violence is a bit different than using the army as population control in general.

Yes, it is dangerous. Yes, it needs to be monitored carefully. But if rioting gets to a stage where the police force is wholly unable to cope, then you have two choices; use the army, or let the violence burn itself out. I prefer the former choice to the latter.

 

There is a quote at the FBI's headquarters (I'll paraphrase):

Overwhelming force deters hostile resistance.

Meaning, quite simply, very few people are willing to act aggressively when faced with instant and extreme punishment.

At times such a show of force is necessary. Hopefully, cooler heads will prevail and there will be no use of force.

 

Sadly reality often seems to come more along the lines of: Overwhelming force creates overwhelming hostility. Chechnya and Algeria are good examples of this, not very similar situations but examples of where regions within countries got unruly and the big bad hawks went off to deal with it by using lots and lots of force.

@AMaster, what is violent rioting but violent dissension? These morons arent running around for the sheer fun of it (well, some probably are). Call in police from the entire country, create special riot police do whatever but do not deploy the army against your own citizens. That is what totalitarian states do which have been pointed out elsewhere.

 

May i remind you that the Los Angeles riots in 1992 immediately ended after the deployement of 4000 troops of the national guard ? They didn't even have to take action, patroling the streets was enough.

 

AMaster I was referring to the use of the National Guard in any scenario. Maybe you should see what I originally wrote about, and you will see what exactly I was talking about. But this is going

[ November 09, 2005, 13:59: Message edited by: Cúchulainn ]

 

It really depends on how far are wiling to go the protesters , it could end when the army intervenes or it could turn in a blood bath.
The main problem is not the fact that the army will fire when attacked(not likely to happen) but the fact that next time the army will act more freely and more and more ...
The police being a civil institution is far less likely to blindly follow order in this situations

 

I had a friend in Tiananmen Square. The initial troops were local -- the student had a good relationship with the troops (many were from the same villages as some of the students). The students often helped the soldiers out by giving them money and food.

Overnight the soldiers were replaced with other soldiers who were not local. The soldiers and students could not speak to each other due to different dialects. My friend saw this as an ominous sign and went to visit family. The soldiers attacked two days after he left.

If the French send French soldiers I would not be concerned (those soldiers will defend themselves if necessary, but would probably not be aggressive). Sending the Legionairres would make me nervous.

 

IIRC the Legion must not be deployed within french borders.

 

T2 Bruno. The Chinese learned it from the Europeans. Maybe not, it's a simple concept, not easily overlooked. Anyway, military intervention in domestic affairs is a no, no, no! Maybe it would work in the US, maybe because of a different mindset. Or mabye it would work in Northern-Ireland. Or in Spain. Or in Italy. Or in France. Or in Germany. Or in Serbia. I don't know. They only thing I know is that the last few times the confederation used it's military to quell internal disorder, it ended in civil wars. That's because if people get attacked by the army, they usually shoot back. And if the army in case is to powerful, there are means to circumvent that to level the field. And people tend to feel indignation and resentment and may hold a grudge for the next 50 years... bah, the same old tune they play everywhere...

It's a job for the police and domestic politics. Sending the military may re-establish superficial order, but it won't solve anything really... By the way, the last "police action" the French had was a war in a country from where a lot of those rioters come from, or at least their parents and grand-parents. Funilly, quite a lot of them are the progeny of colonial-military-veterans. There's a given history that makes things a tad bit more complicated.

 

Not to forget that soldiers are trained to be "trigger-happy". To shoot first and make prisoners later. They are professionel killers.

In Germany, for example, the law forbids the deployment of any millitary force within our borders, even if some of them are trained in policing (for peace-keeping missions).
Exception exists only in cases of natural disasters. And the case of an hijacked plane which can be used as a weapon. And this is highly debated.

 

Do you actually know if the ethnic French population opposed the usage of the army in this case? Because if they support it, it is not like the army is being used against their own citizens - at least not against their own will - and all this talk about the population holding a grudge from then on could be disconsidered.

 

I am just glad these immigrants are digging their own hole though:
http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2005/s1505170.htm

 

The above quote is from your link. Since you have said that you hate nazis for what they did to russians, why are you glad about this?

 

I explained this in the "Russians are coming" thread, which is the place to discuss it if you are interested.