| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Europe | |
| Sarkozy increases his lead in France; Royal warns of unrest | |
| 2007-05-06 | |
| PARIS: The French presidential campaign officially closed Friday with the Gaullist front-runner, Nicolas Sarkozy, looking ever more assured of winning Sunday and his Socialist rival, Ségolène Royal, predicting street violence if he is elected. Her warning came after the two latest opinion polls suggested Sarkozy would beat her by a bigger margin than predicted a few days ago, before a combative debate on national television in which Sarkozy kept his cool under rhetorical fire from Royal. "Choosing Nicolas Sarkozy would be a dangerous choice," Royal told the radio station RTL. "It is my responsibility today to warn people of the risk of his candidacy concerning the violence and brutality that would be unleashed in the country," she said, suggesting that unrest was especially likely in the volatile suburbs that were the site of rioting in 2005. B-b-but h-h-e's HUNGARIAN. He's not French enough. Of course, we weaselifoerous ones won't like it!
Umm Mr. Blair, since you are retiring would you mind consulting? | |
| Posted by:Elmeng Chinenter5576 |
| #24 Royal Pain tried to play the terrorist card, and lost. It once worked in Spain. New game now. |
| Posted by: Sneaze 2007-05-06 19:55 |
| #23 I saw the movie, reluctantly, four months after its premiere. Even four months later, the theater was still about two thirds full. I wasn't going to fall for the stupid love story/didn't care about the stupid boat going down/didn't want to waste 3 hours/ etc etc. I was sobbing at the end of the movie. I hadn't realized that the boat took at least an hour and a half to die. Watching the slow dawning of reality among the crew and passengers was heartwrenching. (Parenthetically, a year or so before I saw the movie I toured Newport, Rhode Island, which used to be the summer home getaway of the New York aristocracy, the Rockefellers, Vanderbilts, Mellons, Carnegies, etc. Our tour guide explained that Newport declined as a result of two factors: 1) the institution of the US income tax in 1911, and 2) all the owners of the big mansions were killed on the Titanic in 1912. The scene of the millionaires retiring to the lounge to die like gentlemen with a proper brandy in hand still haunts me.) Anyway, good luck France, make sure you have enough lifeboats. |
| Posted by: Seafarious 2007-05-06 19:08 |
| #22 Before Titanic's maiden voyage a magzin published an article about Titanic's safety features: the fac that the sealing of the compartments coukld be controlled electrically from the bridege "so in just seconds the ship could be made virtually unsinkable". When disater struck captain, sealed the comprtamnts only to be told that the ship would still end sinking. The movie is quite good on the technical aspects of the disaster, at least on what the crew and staff could know at the time (not for instance about steel's poor quality). |
| Posted by: JFM 2007-05-06 18:39 |
| #21 In addition to the factors you mentionned: -the fact that at this time ships were not required to keep a radio watch 24 hours a day. There was ship in range but its radio operators had gone to bed... a quarter of an hour before Titanic's SOS. It was precisely the Titanic's sinking who led authorities to make mandatory the the keeping of a radio watch 24/day. From distant memories it also led to the creation of an "iceberg watch" Night binoculars had been forgotten so the watch failed to see the iceberg in time. Sea was still. In normal conditions the breaking of waves aginst the iceberg would have allowed the watch seeing the iceberg in time. But still the most decisive cause was that buy a stroke of bad luck/bad decision of the officer in chrgarge the sighting and reaction time were just a few seconds too slow to avoid the iceberg but still too fast since a frontal collision would have flooded only one or two compartments and Titanic would have easily survived. With hindsight we can tell that the officer in charge was right in reversing the enguines but wrong in trying to steer the ship. BTW: both Tirtanic and his sistership the Olympic were much slower to turn than other ships of comparable size. |
| Posted by: JFM 2007-05-06 18:26 |
| #20 A5089, you certainly know more about this man than we do. But you seem so pessimistic. If your instincts are correct, there is only one thing left for you..more prOn. |
| Posted by: Woozle Elmeter2970 2007-05-06 16:26 |
| #19 Monsieur JFM - I did some research on that topic - mostly from a History Channel program, and the answer is a little more complicated that that: The disaster was caused by five failures - two failures in metallurgy, two in the arrogance of its designers, in addition to the one in arrogance of operation, which is generally known. Sort of a “systems” failure! The best steel, in 1912, had a much higher sulfur content than the steels of today. The sulfur content made the steel brittle, and the icy-cold waters of the North Atlantic further aggravated that tendency. Steel rivets recovered from the recently-discovered shipwreck revealed the rivets were of poor quality, even for that time. The combination meant the damage from the collision with the iceberg was far more severe than it otherwise might have been. The first arrogance of design was to leave the top of the bulkheads open. The watertight compartments were not really watertight! Since the ship was “unsinkable”, no one worried about several compartments being breached at once. As the bow of the ship sank, water flowed over the top of the bulkhead into the next compartment, flooding them all in cascade fashion, until the ship sank. Most people are aware of the fourth failure – the Captain so concerned with schedule performance on the ship’s maiden voyage that he plowed ahead in the fog, worrying about neither icebergs nor other ships. When these four failures were combined with the fifth – the shortage of lifeboats – the catastrophe became a full-fledged disaster. Rantburg University - c'est magnifique! P.S. I certainly hope your new president works out as well as folks here think! |
| Posted by: Bobby 2007-05-06 15:47 |
| #18 anonymous5089 If Titanic had rammed the iceberg frontally she would have not sunk. She nearly avoided it but not complettely and this cuased the icerge puncting along her side and five watertight compartments beuing indundated. She could float with four compartments inundated but not with five. |
| Posted by: JFM 2007-05-06 15:37 |
| #17 I really doubt sarko, the man whose "France of tomorrow" (France d'après) is the "France where the expression français de souche (ethnic french) has no use anymore" is the man to steer off the iceberg. Besides, in his first speech, he said he was a proponent of the mediterranean union (IE do with north africa and France and Spain and other Eurabia stubs what was done with the EU). This man will certainly be less of a pain in the *ss for you US people than yavcoub ben shiraq and his insane Arab Policy was, but he's no savior of France, I can tell you that. He may do so some good economically, but he's a gravedigger of that old dying country nonetheless, Mr. multiculti disguised as a rightwinger. |
| Posted by: anonymous5089 2007-05-06 15:22 |
| #16 Yes, but the question if Titanic has already struck the iceberg. One thing is certain, the boat's still at all engines ahead full, if not ramming speed. With a new captain entering the bridge, there's some remote hope for a change in course but the beturbaned berg still looms large. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-05-06 14:25 |
| #15 Yes, but the question if Titanic has already struck the iceberg. |
| Posted by: JFM 2007-05-06 13:52 |
| #14 Leader of France = Captain of the Titanic |
| Posted by: DMFD 2007-05-06 13:32 |
| #13 What's the sound of a million turbans twisting? |
| Posted by: Seafarious 2007-05-06 12:52 |
| #12 I'm watching to see if anymore car-B-ques occur, and the response (if any) to them. |
| Posted by: Redneck Jim 2007-05-06 12:01 |
| #11 If Sarko prevails, I see some rioting, but tamped down by larger force presence. And more forces in reserve if necessary. But he'll play it cool for months to come while formulating his policies on how to deal with the Muslim horde. In the long term, look for mounting pressures on the Muslim hordes. Then, things may explode. But the retaliation will be well organized and swift. |
| Posted by: Woozle Elmeter2970 2007-05-06 11:51 |
| #10 Foxnews sez he's won |
| Posted by: Frank G 2007-05-06 11:49 |
| #9 Oops. Link. |
| Posted by: anonymous5089 2007-05-06 11:49 |
| #8 Rtbf belgian teevee gives sarko at 53%. |
| Posted by: anonymous5089 2007-05-06 11:48 |
| #7 First unofficial estimations from a legitimate source, "Le temps" swiss newspaper (french law prevents the diffusion of exit poll) : sarko circa 54% ségogole circa 46% Record participation, higher than first turn (75% at 17h). Link. |
| Posted by: anonymous5089 2007-05-06 11:36 |
| #6 Dang 5089 get a grip Man! |
| Posted by: Shipman 2007-05-06 10:13 |
| #5 Phineth the Prolific6003 has an interesting observation. There has been lots of unrest in France and the "Fear" is that Sarkozy wont put up with that shit (ie. send in police/troops). In NY Rudy wanted to reduce crime, clean up downtown, and reduce welfare rolls. I still hear the crimes of doom from the left in NYC. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2007-05-06 09:38 |
| #4 Sarkozy is the Rudy Giuliani and Royal is the David Dinkins circa New York 1994 in that race. |
| Posted by: Phineth the Prolific6003 2007-05-06 09:00 |
| #3 Sounds like Royal has gone off the deep end. Brutal, brutal I tells yez! |
| Posted by: Spot 2007-05-06 08:42 |
| #2 Hey, you know what, I agree. |
| Posted by: anonymous5089 2007-05-06 04:28 |
| #1 Personally, I rate the chances of Palestinian reform as being (slightly) higher than French reform. But it's just an opinion. |
| Posted by: gromgoru 2007-05-06 01:32 |