I was surprised by how close the run off actually was. Polls before this final election said almost a 10% gap. I thought Royal was a bit too much of a hot head to become an actual leader of a country. I still thought Bayrou was the best candidate though. France needs a leader with a finance background, so I think Sarkozy will do the best for the time being.
I think France dodged a bullet by not electing Royal. I think she would have been a disaster. More French leftist fantasies will crash that country and everyone in France seems to know that, except for the leftists. At some point they must follow the European trend and trim the rough edges off if they want to govern again. Sarkozy has a very rough road ahead and I think fireworks are coming. Tact doesn't seem to be his strong suit.
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/06/AR2007050600216.html?hpid=topnews http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/07/world/europe/07francequotes.html
sarkozy is actually the one that was the hot head until the debates. i can see people thinking royal is too out of the mainstream. but sarkozy isn't much better on the other side. theres no way sarkozy will be able to deal with the immigrants without causing riots. lets see how long the 5th republic lasts.
Yes he was and French conservatives, in general, are more liberal than some Democrats. France is still waiting for the next Mitterand. Chirac was nothing special.
I'd argue that he was more something awful than nothing special - and I'm not a hysterical france basher either.
I'm not a France basher either, but from what I've gleaned, Chirac is the kind of politician only the French could like. He projects very poorly outside of the country. For a long time, I strongly detested him, thought he was completely devoid of principles and his only goal in life was to be elected president of France, whatever it took. But after talking with some French friends, Chirac is the type of successful political animal that exists in every country. They sort of explained why he made it to the top and lasted as long as he did. I still don't like the guy but he probably isn't as bad as some here think.
"We had one of the great armies of the world, and this great army of the world turned itself into a prison in the valley of Dien Ben Phu."
Well, I agree with you, I just meant with regards to the general French opinion. Some years he was decently high (but not "loved" but then others he was at record lows). He was one of those guys who won a lot but the people were always surprised after.
He said "one of the great armies" not "the greatest" and at the time he was probably right. France wasn't on par with the US, Soviets, or Britain but compared to the rest of the world at the time probably so.
He draws a direct comparison with the US in Iraq. Either he's saying they were great or not. They weren't anything special IMO but clearly he is saying there were at the time.
Again. He's saying they were among the "great" not the "greatest." In the 1950's France was regarded among the top military powers in the 1950's and given they still have a decent sized nuclear arsenal and are fairly high tech could probably still be considered among the top. His argument is that an advanced well equipped army fighting on a foreign soil still faces some serious disadvantages in a guerilla war. They learned that in Vietnam and Algeria and we learned that too in Vietnam and are relearning it now.
I don't want to argue about the quality of the French Army, or even the greater general point about the practicalities of occupation, but the French Army destroyed itself at Dien Bien Phu through a series of tactical blunders that a moderately intelligent third grader wouldn't make after playing a couple of games of "Command and Conquer" Their plan was to pull their entire force into an isolated base at the bottom of a valley surrounded by clear views from medium sized hills on all sides. The North Vietnamese pseudo-army got a handful of mortars and some artillery and essentially engaged in some target practice while the French military was prevented by the isolated location from resupplying the camp. At least outside of France it is considered one of the great military blunders of all time. At Dien Bien Phu the French Army defeated itself.
^ While they contributed to their own defeat that doesn't change that the were among the best equipped and advanced militaries at the time. Strategic blunders though make it even more of an apt comparison to the US in Iraq given the blunders the US military has done in Iraq, such as not having enough troops to secure the country during the invasion.
I agree, but i'm far more disappointed of his internal failures. France's economy and social order needed a change ten years ago but rather than usign the opporutnity to do so, JC did nothing, I guess he trusted Europe (and by Europe I mean the EU vision rather than a geographical place) to be the agent of change but obviously that didn't work out - but I think he probably did in a cynical way in that he expected a France-dominated Europe to emerge and he had no back up plan. Meanwhile French social and economic institutions continued to deteriorate and the road back is that much harder.
though sarkozy is a scum i think he really can help some of that situation. though merkel probably doesn't have much to do with it, germany's economy is booming as is much of EU. france needs to join. the reason he got 80% of the vote was because le pen somehow managed to the second round. that wasn't an endorsement of chirac but the french realizing that le pen makes buchanan look like kucinich.
