hammerlock Posted August 9, 2005 Posted August 9, 2005 "It is a well known fact that neutral Sweden let German forces and supplies pass through its territory during the fighting in Norway in spring 1940, after Germany used political pressure on Sweden." True, but don't forget that whole reason the Germans were going to Norway was because teh French and British were going to break Norways neutralily, in order to force Sweden to stop suppling Germany. And close off the Baltic.
hammerlock Posted August 9, 2005 Posted August 9, 2005 "In 2050 your "younger and more vibrant workforce" will consist of about 50% muslims, descendants and immigrants from third world countries. (That is, if the French government doesn't shut the door very soon). Nonsense! Population 75 million - work force 35-40 million. You're assuming the Muslim & 3rd world immigrants & descendants in the work force increase in numbers by a factor of 6 or 7 in 45 years, while white French non-Muslims of working age reduce in numbers. In order to get figures like that, you have to assume big increases in both immigration & the French Muslim birth rate (why would it increase after 40 years of dropping?), & a drop in the white French non-Muslim birth rate, which has been stable or slightly increasing for 20 years now. The French Muslim birth rate is now only marginally higher than the white French non-Muslim rate. Both are around replacement rate (yes, really), though demographic lag will keep Muslim numbers increasing for a while. The birth rates in the countries from which those Muslim immigrants have mostly come are now near replacement rate - just below in Tunisia, above but dropping in Algeria & Morocco. Algerias birth rate will drop below replacement rate within a couple of years on present trends, Morocco is a bit behind." Coming from Canada i don't see a problem immigrantion be it 3rd world or Muslim. But you most of are fialing to see is that in 2nd and 3rd gen they are pretyy much like normal citizens. they want the same things, a house, kids, wealth.. only differnce is they have another religion. Even the weakens in time, as people inter marry and their life expands to be more than just religion. Does it change the way your country sees the world, yes. Canada is a different place from mostly British make up of the 40-50's. A much better place. The muslims won't take over France, your immigrantion will never be that high. As for France being a superpower, it's part of the EU. The EU might be a superpower in time, but Frnace will always be part the EU. Would an EU superpower be a good thing.. I think so. there needs to be a balance of power and having only the US as a superspower is not a good thing. Nor would be it good only having the US and China as superpowers...
swerve Posted August 9, 2005 Posted August 9, 2005 Coming from Canada i don't see a problem immigrantion be it 3rd world or Muslim. But you most of are fialing to see is that in 2nd and 3rd gen they are pretyy much like normal citizens. they want the same things, a house, kids, wealth.. only differnce is they have another religion. Even the weakens in time, as people inter marry and their life expands to be more than just religion. Does it change the way your country sees the world, yes. Canada is a different place from mostly British make up of the 40-50's. A much better place. The muslims won't take over France, your immigrantion will never be that high. Hammerlock, I agree. With a family like mine (I have a half Bengali Hindu/half Dorset CofE cousin whose wife is Muslim - and the last time I saw her she was drinking beer - & my partner is Japanese), how could I not? But it's not my immigration. I'm in England.
zakk Posted August 9, 2005 Posted August 9, 2005 (edited) Coming from Canada i don't see a problem immigrantion be it 3rd world or Muslim. But you most of are fialing to see is that in 2nd and 3rd gen they are pretyy much like normal citizens. they want the same things, a house, kids, wealth.. only differnce is they have another religion. Even the weakens in time, as people inter marry and their life expands to be more than just religion. Does it change the way your country sees the world, yes. Canada is a different place from mostly British make up of the 40-50's. A much better place. The muslims won't take over France, your immigrantion will never be that high. 205113[/snapback] Good for you. Me on the other hand, see immigration from muslim or third world countries as a growing problem. But then I am not a Canadian, I am a Norwegian living in Oslo. What we see here from 2nd generation immigrants from muslim countries, especially from Pakistan, Turkey, the Middle East and North Africa, is that they do not "inter marry", they import wives or husbands from their native countries. A study made now in 2005 on this, showed that between 87 and 88% of the 1th generation immigrants married persons with background from their native countries, and only 8-9% married a Norwegian. But what is more interesting, is that 95% of 2nd generation immigrants married a person with background from their parents native countries, and only 2-3% married a Norwegian. Meaning that it is even less integration into the Norwegian society among the 2nd generation immigrants compared to 1th generation. http://www.rights.no/sent_stat_gen/hrs_80.00_050519_102.htmhttp://www.rights.no/in_english/hrs_06.00_050401_101.htm As Canada, Norway, and especially Oslo, has become a different place compared to 10 - 15 years ago. But opposite to your great country Canada, I wouldnt say that Norway has become a much better place because of this immigration. Research from Statistics Norway ( http://www.ssb.no/english/ the Norwegian State statistics research institute) shows that non-western immigrants were committing substantially more crimes than Norwegians. In 2002 7% of all Gambians in Norway were convicted, and 5,1% of all Somalis in Norway were convicted the same year, against 1,35% of all Norwegians. The number of convicted Iraqis was on par with the Somalis. http://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/2005/01/14/420284.htmlPakistanis of 2nd generation are on top of the statistics in crime of violence against persons, Kosovo-Albanians have been on top of of the statistics in crime relating to narcotics for many years. Statistics from the Oslo Police Departement showed that 66% of all reported rapes in Oslo in 2000 were commited by non-western immigrants. In 2000 about 10% of the population in Oslo were non-western immigrants. Persons from these 10% committed 66% of all rapes that year. It also happens to be that about 3/4 of non-western immigrants in Oslo are muslims.http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/article190018.ecehttp://www.aftenposten.no/meninger/kronikk...ticle574555.ecehttp://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/article573462.ece We never had gangs shooting at each other 15 years ago. Now we have Pakistani and Somali gangs doing sh*t all over. 15 years ago we didnt have imams preaching that Western society should be destroyed. They are now living (almost) next door to me. A few months ago two Pakistani started an argument on the street in front of the building were I live. One of them pulled up a pistol and started shooting at the other. One of the bullets went through the wall and into an appartement in the 2nd floor, passing just 15cm over the head of a woman sitting and watching TV. We found two other entry points of the bullets in the wall of the building. Did anything of this happen in Norway 15 or 20 years ago? No, it didnt.http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/article1081171.ece (the 12th May 2005 incident) I dont think Norway has become a much better place because of immigration by people from the 3rd world or muslim countries. Not at all. But what about showing me some statistics from Canada on this matter? Is it all Paradize on Earth, as you suggest? BTW, I also feel that we now should move any further discussion on this matter to the FFZ, and continue there. Edited August 9, 2005 by zakk
zakk Posted August 9, 2005 Posted August 9, 2005 True, but don't forget that whole reason the Germans were going to Norway was because teh French and British were going to break Norways neutralily, in order to force Sweden to stop suppling Germany. 205109[/snapback] And because of this it was OK by Sweden to indirectly support German forces, and make them better able to kill Norwegians? I am sure many Norwegians that experienced the German attack 9. April 1940 would agree with you on that... And close off the Baltic. Sorry, but this point I don't understand. Care to explain?
hammerlock Posted August 9, 2005 Posted August 9, 2005 well I'm sorry to hear all the crime in Olso. I'm sure the crime is different now than what it was 20 years ago. Its different here in Canada too, but that more with how society has changed then about immigration. Gun crime is on the rise everywhere in the western world, again not something that can to be tired to immigration. Stats can prove anything you want them too to prove, and I highly doubt that 66% of rapes were gone by Muslim men. That's certainly not the case here in canada. Here's a stat from Canada, in Saskatchewan over 50% or more all inmates in jail are Native, there not there because as a race they go more crime, its social and cultural problems and poverty that put them there. But then maybe we have a better out look on immigration here. After all everyone in canada came from some place else, and experience does matter. Of course if most people in Norway view immigration the way you do, then don't have much hope. Its really not until the 3rd gen that you get the mixing of culturals, with first and second you still have a lot of language cultural problems. But give it to 3rd gen when their kids go to school with your kids and their all friends.. then really doesn't matter that much. Radical Islam is a danger and it needs to be stopped, but don't it with immigration.
hammerlock Posted August 9, 2005 Posted August 9, 2005 QUOTE(hammerlock @ Tue 9 Aug 2005 1746)True, but don't forget that whole reason the Germans were going to Norway was because teh French and British were going to break Norways neutralily, in order to force Sweden to stop suppling Germany.* And because of this it was OK by Sweden to indirectly support German forces, and make them better able to kill Norwegians? I am sure many Norwegians that experienced the German attack 9. April 1940 would agree with you on that...No doesn't it make better, just there is two sides of every story. If teh allies had not invaded Norway, then the germans would not of had to go there. It was lack of respect from the allies over Norway's position to stay out the war, that caused the war to expand there. QUOTE(hammerlock @ Tue 9 Aug 2005 1746)And close off the Baltic. Sorry, but this point I don't understand. Care to explain? The allies goal was to close to ff the baltic sea to the germans limit their ability to get resources from the baltic..taking Norway and then forcing Sweden to take their side as well would closed of the baltic to teh germans.
zakk Posted August 9, 2005 Posted August 9, 2005 (edited) well I'm sorry to hear all the crime in Olso. I'm sure the crime is different now than what it was 20 years ago. Its different here in Canada too, but that more with how society has changed then about immigration. Not in Norway. Here it has very much to do with immigration. Gun crime is on the rise everywhere in the western world, again not something that can to be tired to immigration. Actually, it can here. Gun crimes amongst Norwegians are not on the rise. Allmost all rise in gun crime can be related to immigrants. The same goes for homicide. Stats can prove anything you want them too to prove, and I highly doubt that 66% of rapes were gone by Muslim men. Thats a good answer... And how would you read this official statistics from the Oslo Police? The statistics shows that 66% of all reported rapes in Oslo in 2000 were commited by non-western immigrants. Is it possible to understand this in more than one way? I never said that 66% of rapes were commited by muslim men. I said that 66% of all reported rapes in Oslo in 2000 were commited by non-western immigrants. And that about 3/4 of non-western immigrants in Oslo are muslims. Why do you highly doubt that muslim men were behind the majority of these rapes? But then maybe we have a better out look on immigration here. After all everyone in canada came from some place else, and experience does matter. Or you are more naive than most. Or could it be that it is way easier to get into Europe than into Canada. You actually can drive/walk/run into most European countries. Perhaps you get "higher quality" immigrants than we do? Of course if most people in Norway view immigration the way you do, then don't have much hope. Why not? Is it wrong to point out facts? Should we try to hide the facts and stick our heads in the sand? Sorry, if you mean that I have a problem if I point out that the crime rate amongst non-western immigrants is much to high in Norway, and that I dont like that Norwegian women are being raped by immigrants, then we see the world different. These scumbags shouldn't be understood, they should be dealt with, quick and swiftly. Its really not until the 3rd gen that you get the mixing of culturals, with first and second you still have a lot of language cultural problems. But give it to 3rd gen when their kids go to school with your kids and their all friends.. then really doesn't matter that much. You said earlier that "But you most of are fialing to see is that in 2nd and 3rd gen they are pretyy much like normal citizens". Now you move to 3rd generation only. Why? Radical Islam is a danger and it needs to be stopped, but don't it with immigration.205226[/snapback] At least we can agree on that. BTW, how is the Sharia law in Ontario catching on? http://www.nawl.ca/brief-sharia.html Edited August 10, 2005 by zakk
zakk Posted August 9, 2005 Posted August 9, 2005 No doesn't it make better, just there is two sides of every story. If teh allies had not invaded Norway, then the germans would not of had to go there. It was lack of respect from the allies over Norway's position to stay out the war, that caused the war to expand there. Well, not according to every books on the subject... The allies goal was to close to ff the baltic sea to the germans limit their ability to get resources from the baltic..taking Norway and then forcing Sweden to take their side as well would closed of the baltic to teh germans.205229[/snapback] I don't see how forcing Sweden to take their side would close off the Baltic to the Germans. And I don't see how Sweden could be forced to take the side of the Allies.
Animal Mother Posted August 10, 2005 Posted August 10, 2005 What would have happened had Norway sided with the allies when the war broke out, or a more plausible scenario, after repeated sinkings of Norwegian merchant shipping by German submarines? A useful bomber base for the British or just a useless sideshow?
zakk Posted August 10, 2005 Posted August 10, 2005 What would have happened had Norway sided with the allies when the war broke out, or a more plausible scenario, after repeated sinkings of Norwegian merchant shipping by German submarines? A useful bomber base for the British or just a useless sideshow?205241[/snapback] That is a good "What if?"-scenario, I think. Britain, France, Australia and New Zealand declared war on Germany September 3rd 1939. If we take this as the date when Norway should side with the Allies against Germany, then I see at least 5 points that could be of value to the Allies.1. Norway would put to use its large merchant fleet for the Allies exclusively, at a much earlier date than happened.2. Norway would stop the shipping of iron ore through Narvik, from mines in Sweden. The iron ore was considered vital to the German war industry.3. The German forces were not ready to attack Norway in 1939. By siding with the allies, Norwegian forces could be brought up to a much higher readiness level than compared to 9. April 1940, getting some of the equipment recently ordered into use before an eventually German attack (P-36 fighters etc). 4. Providing Britain with bomber bases, as you suggest.5. Providing Britain with naval bases. Both these point should make it much more difficult for the German navy to get into the Atlantic. Would this have prevented a German attack on Norway in 1940? I dont know, but I think this scenario would make it a much harder going for the Germans.
BJE Posted August 10, 2005 Posted August 10, 2005 Would this have prevented a German attack on Norway in 1940? I dont know, but I think this scenario would make it a much harder going for the Germans.205247[/snapback]A fully mobilised Norwegian defence would have stopped a German attack cold. For one thing, I don't think that any civilian German ships would have been allowed in your harbours...
R011 Posted August 10, 2005 Posted August 10, 2005 But what about showing me some statistics from Canada on this matter? Is it all Paradize on Earth, as you suggest? 205235[/snapback]With a few exceptions, immigrants are not especially more prone to crime than native born Canadians. We do have problems within some communities - the Carribbean and Tamil ones in particular. In each case, it is a criminal minority within those groups who have moved into drug trafficking. The Tamil gangs have been comparitively quiet recently. There has been a rash of gang related shootings within the Black community in Toronto. Significantly, Black community leaders are speaking up against the violence. One thing to keep in mind is that Canada has a very diverse immigrant population. We don't just get them from the Magrib, but from India, the Philipines, China, Portugal, the Carribbean, Africa . . .At least we can agree on that. BTW, how is the Sharia law in Ontario catching on?http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/c...haria_boyd]link
R011 Posted August 10, 2005 Posted August 10, 2005 its social and cultural problems and poverty that put them there. 205226[/snapback]That's true enough, but it still means that Native people are committing a disproportionate amount of crime. It seems that the same can be said about the immigrant communities in Norway. A difference is that mainstream Canadian society helped our Natives turn out that way. Norwegian society is much less responsible for the problems in their immigrant communities.
Sailor Lars Posted September 10, 2007 Posted September 10, 2007 I dont know anybody who has a Peugeot, Renault or Citroen as their Nr 1 Dreamcar. I've seen quite a bit world rally champions driving a Peugeot or a Citroen as their Nr 1 Dreamcar. All the way from the legendary B-serie monsters
swerve Posted September 11, 2007 Posted September 11, 2007 Speaking with an English, Irish, Scottish (and probably Norman as well, God help me) ethnic mix, I thought I had unusual ancestry. As for the emerging French superpower (and I for one welcome our French overlords etc etc) by the time they put Napoleon IV on the throne, we shall have the ability to clone Henry V. Problem sorted. I have Welsh & Danish (some from the German borderlands) ancestors, as well as English, but it's only since ca 1970 that the family's gone intercontinental. One of my cousins added to the mix recently by marrying a Punjabi woman. Hindu, not Sikh. Damn fine wedding reception, but I dread to think what it cost.
GdG** Posted September 12, 2007 Posted September 12, 2007 BTW, I'm pasting here something I posted on another forum to reply to the usual muslim spermatozoids will take over France in 2050; The current female fertility in France is 1.94 (in 2006 it reached 2.07 and the population 64 million). According to projections (not pessimistic, nor optimistic), France will have 70, 000, 000 citizens in 2050 (and according to this scenario, France will get back it's first position ahead of the depopulating Germany it lost during the 1840's). Nope, the fertility of 2nd generation immigrants is exactly the same as the french, which has been statistically proved. The first generation, however, does make more babies, but they have participated at a level of .1 in the growth of fertility in France. These women of foreign origin, in age of procreating represent 1/12th of the total. The morons you saw throwing rocks during the riots may look plenty, but in fact, THEY are the 2nd generation of immigrants, and symbols of imported demographic customs which have quickly been dropped by the 2nd generation. France is the european country which relies the less on immigrants for it's demographic growth: 20% in France, vs 47% in the Netherlands and 82% in Spain. These are the stats of the Institut national d'études démographiques. Here are the most given names to male babies in 2004 in France: 1 Enzo 11 Alexis2 Lucas 12 Romain3 Theo 13 Leo4 Thomas 14 Tom5 Hugo 15 Alexandre6 Mathis 16 Antoine7 Nathan 17 Quentin8 Maxime 18 Matheo9 Clement 19 Baptiste10 Louis 20 Matteo None of them are of muslim/african/asian origin. The most common arabic names such as Mohammed or Medhi are well below rank #200. And guess what? Most of the foreigners or foreigners born in France are in majority of... christian culture! European + American immigrants: 2, 050, 000African (Maghreb and Black Africa): 1, 600, 000Asian and Oceanian: 130, 000 And these stats DO NOT include people working in France for a few months for international companies. And one more thing: France has the same % of immigrants it did have during the 1930's.
seahawk Posted September 12, 2007 Posted September 12, 2007 Coming from Canada i don't see a problem immigrantion be it 3rd world or Muslim. But you most of are fialing to see is that in 2nd and 3rd gen they are pretyy much like normal citizens. they want the same things, a house, kids, wealth.. only differnce is they have another religion. Even the weakens in time, as people inter marry and their life expands to be more than just religion. Does it change the way your country sees the world, yes. Canada is a different place from mostly British make up of the 40-50's. A much better place. The muslims won't take over France, your immigrantion will never be that high. As for France being a superpower, it's part of the EU. The EU might be a superpower in time, but Frnace will always be part the EU. Would an EU superpower be a good thing.. I think so. there needs to be a balance of power and having only the US as a superspower is not a good thing. Nor would be it good only having the US and China as superpowers... Well, I would say that muslim imigrants in Europa are different to the people who went to Canada. While Canada has always a destination for the good workers and the people that wanted to make something out of their lifes and mostly being well educated. Europae attracted imigrants that were on the lower level of education in their home countries.Many Turks in Germany come from the less developed regions in the country. That is a difference that you can feel even after 2 generations.
Rubberneck Posted September 12, 2007 Posted September 12, 2007 As long as the Chateauneuf Du Pape, L'Hermitage, Cos D'Estournal, Zind-Humbrecht and Chambolle-Musigny continue to flow, I'm partial to the French. When it stops flowing, I'm gone.
Old Tanker Posted September 12, 2007 Posted September 12, 2007 Sailor Lars reinvigorates a two year dormant thread. Recently when Colin Powell was asked about the French-U.S. relationship he noted that we have had a close relationship with France for 200 years which included ongoing family counseling for 190 of those 200 years.
Sven Arvidsson Posted September 13, 2007 Posted September 13, 2007 As long as the Chateauneuf Du Pape, L'Hermitage, Cos D'Estournal, Zind-Humbrecht and Chambolle-Musigny continue to flow, I'm partial to the French. When it stops flowing, I'm gone.I think I could possibly manage to hang on even in the face of such a cathastrophe... ...provided I could hang on to Alizee, Laetitia Casta and Marie Gillain. (I'm not off topic! It's ancient TN lore that any thread with more than five post on any French subject requires a mentioning of Mademoiselle Casta.)
Hans Engstrom Posted September 17, 2007 Posted September 17, 2007 (edited) Considering how particularly ruthless (IMO) the French tend to be when they do act militarily, one wonders what their warplan for this is? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6998118.stm Tacnuke strikes is not something I'd rule out. Edited September 17, 2007 by Hans Engstrom
Xavier Posted September 17, 2007 Posted September 17, 2007 Considering how particularly ruthless (IMO) the French tend to be when they do act militarily, one wonders what their warplan for this is? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6998118.stm Tacnuke strikes is not something I'd rule out.why, getting their clone of Napoleon out and sending him of with La Grande Armée of course! besides that, the tacnuke might wait until there is a real threat of Teheran using one NOW, or after they already did, now for some rafales from the CdG striking the nuke plants along with the US and UK....I'm watching the news closely
DB Posted September 17, 2007 Posted September 17, 2007 Considering how particularly ruthless (IMO) the French tend to be when they do act militarily, one wonders what their warplan for this is? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6998118.stm Tacnuke strikes is not something I'd rule out.And Iran replies, basically saying that Sarkozy's mother smells of elderberries: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6998602.stm David
GdG** Posted September 17, 2007 Posted September 17, 2007 why, getting their clone of Napoleon out and sending him of with La Grande Armée of course! besides that, the tacnuke might wait until there is a real threat of Teheran using one NOW, or after they already did, now for some rafales from the CdG striking the nuke plants along with the US and UK....I'm watching the news closely How comes? Would Sarkozy be able to speak loud without anything to back it? The CDG is getting is at the dry dock until mid 2008. The Rafale M is of the F2 model, hence unable to deliver a nuke. Sarkozy is planning to cut the defense budget (a contrario of Chirac) to finance his tax cuts for the richest. Believe it or not, you'll regret Chirac
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now