French Toast
	found on USA Today written by chlim01, edited by George (Plastic) [ read unedited ] posted Fri 2 May 9:00am
		There's still a lot of anger out there.... This isn't going to go away anytime soon. "The hopes of French businessmen that the conclusion of the Iraq War would bring about the end of America's great Francophobic boycott have been dashed," chlim01 writes. "USA Today reports that, putting the lie to earlier optimistic estimates, the boycotts are going strong, with almost 'one in five Americans who regularly buy French products' joining in. And the French are suffering precisely where the boycotters want them to suffer — in their pockets.

	"Some French organizations aren't taking this lying down. The French Government Tourist Office, fearing a disastrous loss of US$500 million in American tourist business, is counterattacking by offering tempting discounts to potential American tourists. "Granting the right of consumers to do what they want with their money, what can Francophilic Americans do to rescue French business? While the boycott at present doesn't appear potent enough to drive French businessmen into bankruptcy, much less propel France into recession, it's still true that French businessmen are hurting, and could hurt even worse should nothing be done."

[ more plastic... ]    

show almost all: 120 commentsmost: 27 commentsbest: 9 comments by oldest first (ignore threads) newest first highest scores first oldest first newest first (ignore threads)

1.  They're on their own   by DoorFrame       at Fri 2 May 9:14am score of 1.5 astute     If a French business was sincerely concerned about this boycott they could have done a few things to distance themselves from the growing anti-francism. 1. Leave France This is fairly dramatic, and nearly impossible for companies who rely upon their location for their business (French wines for example). But some companies, if they truly wanted to show Americans that they cared, could have shipped themselves overseas. 2. Vocal Opposition Corporations have a voice, and if they cared about how the American public viewed them, they should have spoken up. If they were against the actions of the French Government, they should have announced so loudly, clearly and repeatedly. A French company standing against the French way of life would have seemed like a shining symbol of valor to the American boycotters. 3. Deal with it So Americans are mad at your country and your way of life. If you're not willing to change either, then you should be willing to do without some American business for the time being. If you rely so heavily upon the American dollar that you cannot survive with it, then maybe you should be re-evaluating your political, idealogical, and financial priorities. 4. Whine Most corporations will choose to whine that they're being unfairly targetted. Whining will not convince angry American consumers to change thier mind and buy your products. Time will, apologies will, but whining will not. In the end, you're dealing with individual consumers so your only chance is to make a play directly to them. If you're unable or unwilling to do so, then you're going to have to accept the boycott and move on. PS. I'm not boycotting anything, I think it's silly.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

19.  Re: They're on their own   by Phaedrus       at Fri 2 May 12:19pm score of 3 compelling   in reply to comment 1     If your opening sentence, you refer to French business as though it were synonymous with the French government. In France, as in the US, there were people who disagreed with the government's policies, but whose voices were ignored. For the record, I was, and still am, against the war in Iraq. In the days leading up to the war, I appreciated France, Germany, and Russia arguing that inspectors needed more time to work and that clear evidence of WMD was needed before military action could be taken. Unfortunately, France, caught up in its Gallic self-righteousness, overplayed its hand by announcing that it would veto any resolution authorizing military force, regardless of what Iraq did. This, of course, gave Saddam Hussein the perfect cover for stonewalling and not cooperating with inspectors, and may have actually worsened the situation by giving the US the perfect excuse to go in alone: "If France is going to wuss out no matter what we find, then screw the UN; we're goin' in, and you're either for us or against us." I have several friends in France, and they are uniformally appalled at how things turned out; they feel that France was on the right side of the issue until they issued the veto threat, the step too far that brought France's credibility down around their ears. They are both shocked and saddened by US public reaction to their government's actions; all of them said that, despite the two countries' sometimes prickly relations, the French and Americans have always been friends and always should be. The problem with the boycott is that most people have only a vague notion of what it is about. They heard that the French did something against the US, so by gosh they must be our enemies now, so let's not have anything to do with them anymore. This has led to a whole slew of boneheaded maneuvers (did anyone think renaming French fries to freedom fries was really going to hurt the French?). As usual, the people who will ultimately be hurt most will be the average worker in the French economy who is being "punished" for a policy he may not even have agreed with. Yes, the French can be snotty and self-important and insufferably snobbish about the magnificence of their language and culture, but so what? I have friends who aren't perfect, but I don't blow them off because of those imperfections. There's far more good than bad in the history of the relations of the two countries, and people who are in favor of a boycott should consider those things; after all, the Statue of Liberty was a gift from those same people we're so angry at right now. "And what is good, Phaedrus,And what is not good-Need we ask anyone to tell us these things?""   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   131.  Re: They're on their own   by tlacolotl       at Mon 5 May 7:29am score of 1.5 interesting   in reply to comment 19     From the little information I've been able to glean from the few pro-war people I know, you're pretty much right on the mark; people have just been told that the French 'betrayed' the US, or that they are weasels, or whatever, and like the good un-Americans they are, they follow orders and become anti-French. When confronted with this, I immediately adopt this posture of "well, duh, idiot, the US betrayed France, we should be ashamed of ourselves", and the stupid Francophobe has a hard time finding ground to stand on — because there is none. Sure, it's true that the French could have toned their rhetoric down, but it's obvious that their hearts were in the right place, and I can really identify with their leaders and what I imagine their perceptions of the current US administration must be. I mean, to you and I, ordinary Americans, we see this Bush guy up on the screen and chuckle, "oh my God, he's such a moron" — but there's always this part of us thinking, "well, maybe it's just that he's a bad speech-giver", or "well, he's just some puppet asshole but there really are some solid heads backing him up", or something along those lines — a little skepticism to counter our natural anti-Republican natures. But to anyone who had to actually deal with the administration as colleagues, well, you can imagine the frustration that arises. I'm sure it was clear to the French that GW was going to try to invade Iraq no matter what, and while they would have been more effective in stopping the invasion if they'd have kept the whole veto thing under wraps until, say, the Security Council actually voted on a resolution, having dealt with this insane, idiotic American administration for the last x months had surely taken its toll on an otherwise politically savvy French government. The GW camp had upped the ante month after month, constantly changing and amplifying their justifications for war — and thus implying that all they wanted was War (because, as we know now, it was more about making an example outta Saddam than anything else) and that any attempt at reasoning with them was doomed to failure. I mean, does anyone out there actually think that Bush could have been reasoned with to halt the war? No. So the French, in anger and frustration, took a chance at one last power grab to counter the crazy Americans, and it failed. But to their credit, of course, even if the US had submitted their proposal and it had been voted on and France had vetoed it...well, of course, we'd still have gone to war, right? So can we blame the French for their "zero-tolerance" attitude toward Republican neo-Fascism? It's a good policy, let's admit it, and one that I for one would like to see the Democrats adopt — though, of course, they won't, and we're going to see another four years of GW coming up on the horizon... So, just for fun, I'm going to start to try boycotting American products. Sounds hard (and ineffectual), but I'm morally obliged to do it, as my allegiance to the UN far surpasses my randomly-acquired (and little-cherished) status as an 'American', and the US has betrayed me and every internationally-minded person on the planet. Anyone who thinks the French & the UN betrayed America should have their head checked; it's the other way around. America can go fuck itself, and take its "love-it-or-leave-it" attitude with it; this land is my land, after all, not theirs... Do as thou wilt shall be the whole of thy law   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

2.  Neh   by coryb       at Fri 2 May 9:23am score of 4.5 clever     Toronto has lost what, $300 million from SARS avoidance. And things are still chugging along. I notice the only ones even still talking about the boycott are Americans... unless someone can point out some French outrage over the boycott, I'll just assume that this is some sort of perverse, bizarre American congratulatory circle-jerk.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

61.  Re: Neh   by xigxag       at Sat 3 May 5:56pm score of 1   in reply to comment 2     The stats accompanying the USA Today article show that this isn't just about an organized boycott. It's also about some Americans having the perception that they are no longer welcome in France, and adjusting their plans accordingly. I notice the only ones even still talking about the boycott are Americans... According to the article, the French Government Tourist Office seems to be very concerned about the drop in business. True, they don't specifically state "boycott" as being a reason, but there really does seem to be a some kind of problem here. It's not just blowhards overestimating their own economic power in stereotypical Yankee fashion.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   64.  Re: Neh   by Lemmy Caution       at Sat 3 May 6:17pm score of 3.5 astute   in reply to comment 61     Well, everyone is feeling a drop in business. Especially the tourist industries. Or have you failed to notice the huge, flailing mammoths dying in the living room called United Airlines and American Airlines?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   70.  Re: Neh   by xigxag       at Sat 3 May 8:16pm score of 1.5 interesting   in reply to comment 64     That might have something to do with it, but again, referring to the French Govt's own stats, "do not feel welcome" is overwhelmingly the main reason Americans are changing their travel plans. It is twice as frequently stated than all other reasons put together (including economics and the threat of terrorism).   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   73.  "do not feel welcome"..   by RandomAction       at Sat 3 May 8:58pm score of 1.5 astute   in reply to comment 70     .. is overwhelmingly how many tourists feel when visiting France. Seriously, go there and speak the language with a faulty accent! In the UK going to France is seen as a challenge. PS. the food ain't that great. Nevertheless getting mad at them for acting rationally in their own interests is bad form.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   80.  Re: "do not feel welcome"..   by alumshubby       at Sat 3 May 10:41pm score of 1   in reply to comment 73     France in general or Paris in particular? I'm thinking about going there, but it would be to visit a friend in Montpellier (southeastern). I'd always heard that the general snootiness and rudeness is mostly confined to Paris but when you get away from there, you're apt to meet friendlier folks. "How many light bulbs does it take to change a person?"   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   85.  Re: "do not feel welcome"..   by RandomAction       at Sun 4 May 12:22am score of 1   in reply to comment 80     alumshubby please ignore my comment, it's based on rather old 3rd hand stuff, and was mainly tongue in cheek... quite frankly I've only kissed 2 French girls, and have been no closer to Paris than Margate (Southern England). Experience tells me that seemingly snooty/rude behaviour is common to most large cities.   P.S. Have a fantastic time.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   91.  Eh...   by coryb       at Sun 4 May 1:42am score of 1   in reply to comment 85     Who are the snotty ones, again? You've got me all confused here.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

3.  boycott   by edshepp       at Fri 2 May 9:36am score of 2 funny     I don't see any evidence of a French boycott in New York City, but I guess there must be something going on nationally. Who exactly is boycotting French products? What are they boycotting? AXA? L'Oreal? French fries? I'm willing to visit France and drop a couple dollars if they'll fly me over there. That would be a great idea--if they'd just start flying Americans over there. I hope the French powers-that-be are reading this. Fly. Over. There. Me. Dollars. A couple. http://edshepp.blogspot.com   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

4.  Re: New York   by zyxwvutsr       at Fri 2 May 10:14am score of 1   in reply to comment 3     I don't see any evidence of a French boycott in New York City, but I guess there must be something going on nationally. Who exactly is boycotting French products? What are they boycotting? The "Boycott France" movement in New York (and everywhere else, it seems) is almost entirely unorganized and highly individual. I think of it as a boycott by anecdote since it is anti-rational and unstructured. Last night I was in a Manhattan bar with a group of people and one of my friends ordered a fancy martini with Grey Goose, a French-made vodka. Another memeber of the group gently berated her and proudly proclaimed that he was avoiding French products due to the shabby way they treated the US in the UN Security Council. He also insisted that Grey Goose was a shitty vodka and suggested that she consider having a martini made with Stolichnaya, which is Russian and more "authentic." She shrugged, and agreed, and the waiter went off to get her drink. When I pointed out that Russia had been not much more supportive of the US than France, the bar-hopping-boycotter mumbled something about never having liked the French very much in the first place. There is some other anecdotal evidence that some New Yorkers are boycotting French products, but I suspect that a large percentage of the Francophobes are not newly-minted ones.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   20.  Re: New York   by seijun002       at Fri 2 May 12:21pm score of 1.5 informative   in reply to comment 4     When I pointed out that Russia had been not much more supportive of the US than France, the bar-hopping-boycotter mumbled something about never having liked the French very much in the first place. I think this gets to the nub of it. I've always found American Francophobia puerile and irrational.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   112.  Re: New York   by norcalwindows       at Sun 4 May 2:28pm score of 1   in reply to comment 4     I know I am coming in late on this topic, but I have found that engaging people in the sort of geo-poitical discussion that would be necessary to inform your friend in the bar of the various imperatives driving national policy of a democracy usually takes either 1. four years at the university of your friend's choice, or 2. having paid attention to School House Rock in grade school, and a few civics classes in middle and high school. France's leaders were reacting to the wishes of the populace, and to other national and bilateral security issues that did not jibe with Bush's rush into war with Iraq. With chemical, biological and nuclear weapons still unfound in Iraq, and Iraqi scientists, under who knows what kind of torture or other methods, maintaining there are no weapons, it may turn out that Chirac was more correct than incorrect (in asserting Hussein could be dealt with through inspection regimes and revised sanctions). And I agree, most people just need an excuse to express their phobias or dislikes, and France sure made for a convenient foil...   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   22.  Re: New York   by Adipic Acid       at Fri 2 May 12:36pm score of 1.5 astute   in reply to comment 20     I've always found American Francophobia puerile and irrational. I agree, but I also find French Americanophobia to be just as bad. In this case these puerile and irrational attitudes led to tragic, if utterly predictable, results. No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Churchill   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   37.  Re: New York   by seijun002       at Fri 2 May 4:31pm score of 2 compelling   in reply to comment 22     agree, but I also find French Americanophobia to be just as bad. Maybe, but I arguably have more influence over the opinions of my own compatriots than I do the French. My ugly behavior is made no less ugly by the fact that my neighbor across the street is also an asshole.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   6.  Re: boycott   by Diversey       at Fri 2 May 10:30am score of 1.5 novel   in reply to comment 3     Well, no one seems to be boycotting the Louis Vuitton spring collection. Despite their four-digit price tags, the bags are selling out nationwide. Maybe if the supposed boycott continues long enough, I'll have better luck with the fall line...   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   48.  Heard at a party...   by TheMCP       at Sat 3 May 7:32am score of 2 clever   in reply to comment 6     Heard at a party at Waldeaux's last week... Q. What language do they speak in France? A. Freedom. End of line.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   8.  Re: boycott   by BigBoote66       at Fri 2 May 10:38am score of 2 astute   in reply to comment 3     There was a story on NPR in the last week about a French company that imports antiques & furniture to the U.S. They've been hit pretty hard & have had to let go of their staff. Apparently, a lot of the "boycotting" is being done by American middlemen — wholesalers who are reluctant to buy French because their retailers are reluctant to buy French because of a fear of consumer response. So, in one respect, the boycott is being fed by ass-covering & the belief that there is a boycott, and not by any actual ideology on the part of those doing the purchasing. The French importer in this case said she understood her American customer's reactions, as she would probably do the same thing in their case (only buy stuff they thought they'd be able to sell). -BbT   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   60.  Re: boycott   by Mackerel       at Sat 3 May 5:45pm score of 2 funny   in reply to comment 3     What are they boycotting? AXA? L'Oreal? French fries? Back before my dog ran away, I remember seeing that all the dog toys, treats and grooming products I got him came from France. Poor little feller, maybe he ran away from me just to boycott this. Who breaks a butterfly upon a Wheel?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

5.  These people give Americans a bad name   by Jay Mack       at Fri 2 May 10:20am score of 4 compelling     First off, I'm not too concerned about a French boycott really having a dramatic, long-term economic influence. With that said, those who are boycotting French products because France actually challenged the United States over the Iraq war are just an embarrassment to the United States. I mean are these people serious? There have to be other countries more worthy of boycotting. China comes to mind. According to Amnesty International's 2002 report China seems a little more troubling than France regarding human rights. While France isn't perfect, it sure seems less boycott worthy. Here is the AI report on France. I realize that Amnesty International isn't the end-all be-all, but I think it is a pretty fair gauge regarding human rights and human rights seem a little more important to me than this immature boycott. Sorry for the rant, but it seems these Americans need to get their priorities straight and realize that France isn't part of the problem. Check out www.hell-vetica.com link   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

11.  Re: These people give Americans a bad name   by tdahnsn       at Fri 2 May 10:40am score of 2 astute   in reply to comment 5     First, let me say I'm not a boycotter. I believe that economic boycotts have far too much possibility for collateral damage. Second, those who are boycotting never claimed that they were boycotting France for it's human rights record. They are boycotting France because of what they felt France did against America and against the world. There is little question now, in their minds at least, that France actively opposed the US agenda for their own sake, sold weapons to and dealt with the Iraqi government, and have moved to slight the US. Whether or not any or all of those things are true is pretty much irrelevant to those who are boycotting; they believe and that is sufficient for them. When you claim that only certain causes are worthy of boycott you belittle every cause which has ever advocated a boycott. To you this is a cheap and immature act. To them it's a statement of consequences for those who they believe have acted poorly. It's not like they demanded regime change or some other violence. They've chosen a peaceful protest. Seems admirable to me. France is part of the problem, depending on what you think the problem is. Just because you disagree with someone doesn't make them stupid. That's usually done by their parents. Why? What's the most callous thing you've said today?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   14.  Re: These people give Americans a bad name   by Jay Mack       at Fri 2 May 11:24am score of 1.5 interesting   in reply to comment 11     In a lot of ways you are right. I'm sure they believe what they are doing is the right thing and that boycotting is the right thing. But that is a little like saying we shouldn't get upset at a group like the KKK for having some sort of white power march or boycott. Now, I'm not saying that these groups boycotting France are akin to the KKK, but just because a group believes they are right doesn't mean they are free from criticism. The one point I specifically disagree with is this one. When you claim that only certain causes are worthy of boycott you belittle every cause which has ever advocated a boycott. I disagree. I think boycotting should be used carefully. Since a successful boycott needs to influence and reach as many people possible, I see no problem saying a particular boycott is a bad idea to counter the boycott push. I think this French boycott gives boycotting a bad name and maybe takes away some of its power for more worthy cause. The very nature of a political boycott is subjective so I think it is important to weigh in on the issue. Two side notes, That's usually done by their parents. made me laugh and after writing the boycott so many times, it no longer has any meaning to me. Bummer. Check out www.hell-vetica.com link   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   55.  Re: These people give Americans a bad name   by Lemmy Caution       at Sat 3 May 4:46pm score of 1   in reply to comment 11     Moral of the story: the American right hates strident, principled disagreement more than human rights abuses.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   16.  Re: These people give Americans a bad name   by tdahnsn       at Fri 2 May 11:35am score of 1.5 compelling   in reply to comment 14     "But that is a little like saying we shouldn't get upset at a group like the KKK for having some sort of white power march or boycott." Do you get angry when the NAACP has a march or a boycott? Marches and boycotts are peaceful protests and while I may disagree with what the KKK has to say about things, I think that's a damn sight better than when they lynch folks or burn crosses. As for this boycott or another cheapening the idea of a boycott, couldn't the same things be said about any boycott with which you don't agree? Sure, to you this is an unfair and unnecessary boycott designed to make a political statement with which you don't agree. I feel the same way about the NAACP boycotting towns or people boycotting Israeli goods. That doesn't mean that those boycotts make boycotts more or less meaningful to me. Why? What's the most callous thing you've said today?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   17.  Re: These people give Americans a bad name   by Jay Mack       at Fri 2 May 12:02pm score of 1   in reply to comment 16     I guess I just don't understand your point. Since these boycotts are political in nature, then they are going to be subjective. Since it is political, you want as many people to agree with your cause. So your right when you say things like Sure, to you this is an unfair and unnecessary boycott designed to make a political statement with which you don't agree. The only reason to take a stand on an issue is to try and make some sort of change. I'm not saying they can't boycott, I'm saying they shouldn't because I think it is a bad idea and makes the United States look foolish. So do I get angry at NAACP marches or boycotts? No, because civil rights issues seem boycott worthy to me. But just as people want to make their voices heard via boycott, I want to make sure people know when I agree. Check out www.hell-vetica.com link   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   63.  Re: These people give Americans a bad name   by YCDK       at Sat 3 May 6:15pm score of 1.5 funny   in reply to comment 5     There have to be other countries more worthy of boycotting. China comes to mind. You're really expecting these people to live without 99% of Wal-Mart's product line? You inhuman monster! The can knows who to whoop.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   78.  Re: These people give Americans a bad name   by fudgenozzle       at Sat 3 May 10:14pm score of 1   in reply to comment 5     Uh, OK, but China isn't on the U.S. allies list, and never was (that multilateral Korea thing is more, you know, the refugees seem to want to transit via Beijing, so let's all work on the whackjob). When China opposes U.S. actions in the UN, nobody's surprised. After all, China and the U.S. fought each other in the Korean War, and had sporadic bits of nastiness over Taiwan until the '70s. What's hurting France (and believe me, France is hurting from these boycotts... without searching hard I've found one-week deals, Paris in June, including airfare and decent hotel, from $700 per person!) is the sense that some Americans, you may not know them but they supported the war, feel betrayed. Try lecturing these folks on how they ought to spend their hard-earned money, and expect a solid smack in the mouth. karma only matters on sites with rising Alexa numbers.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

7.  My little story   by Smallest       at Fri 2 May 10:37am score of 5 compelling     Friday after work, my wife and I left the big city of Raleigh and headed out to the beach with some friends for a weekend of leisure. For two days, eight of us ate and drank and got sunburned and poked at a dead puffer fish we found, etc.. Saturday, we went out to get some food and booze. I went into the local state-owned liquor store and bought a little bottle of Glenlivet. The middle aged man at the counter said to me, in a heavy southern accent (not the cool British/southern blend that you often hear on the NC coast — this was just Boss Hogg southern), "You know that's made by a French company, don't you?" I was stunned. Not knowing what I should do, I just stood there. He stared at me, as did his buddy leaning against the wall, apparently waiting for me to go pick out something else. I finally said, "Hmmm. Too bad it's so good," and handed him a $20. Then his look turned to pity and disgust, as if I'd just told him I like to piss on the graves of children. He said "OK, then", as he made change. On the way back home the next day, driving out of town, I noticed probably a dozen Confederate battle flags on various houses, trucks and mailboxes. We went into a t-shirt store (because we never pack enough shirts) and saw a wall full of shirts with such America-loving slogans as: "Proud to be a Rebel", "Southern Pride", "South 0, North 1, Halftime" and "The South's Gonna Do It Again!" ("what, lose?" my wife quipped). On a normal day, I wouldn't have given any of this a second thought, since the south is full of Confederate flags and stupid t-shirts. But... Then it dawned on me: it's fine for people in NC and elsewhere in the south to celebrate the fact that the southern states tried to literally destroy the union over the right to own people. But it's a sin to buy something that is produced in Scotland by a French-owned company, simply because France didn't agree with GWB's war. It's worse to buy something that might send $1.00 to France, one of our oldest and strongest allies, than it is to be proud that the south almost succeeded in destroying this country. .sig .sgi .gis .gsi .isg .igs   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

13.  Re: My little story   by Kevin T.       at Fri 2 May 10:53am score of 2 clever   in reply to comment 7     ...But it's a sin to buy something that is produced in Scotland by a French-owned company, simply because France didn't agree with GWB's war. Based on my own experiences in the Carolinas, I'd say it's just as likely that he was pissed because France didn't intervene on the side of the Confederacy during the War of Northern Aggression.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   25.  Re: My little story   by sven_haagendaas       at Fri 2 May 1:11pm score of 1.5 brilliant   in reply to comment 7     Next time, feign disgust and say, "My God, man, why would you sell this horrid swill? Do you know that the French nearly derailed our liberation of Iraq? Do you hate America? Hmmm?"   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   71.  Re: My little story   by Pengie       at Sat 3 May 8:25pm score of 1   in reply to comment 25     Actually, the preferred question is "Why do you hate America?" Just saying "Do you hate America?" gives them an out.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   36.  Re: My little story   by wrestler       at Fri 2 May 4:08pm score of 1.5 funny   in reply to comment 7     bought a little bottle of Glenlivet ... "You know that's made by a French company, don't you?" Glenlivet is from Great Britian, Scotland, Highlands, Speyside (Livet) even if the company that owns the distillery is headquartered in Paris, France. Give Boss Hogg a break, he was dealing with some very complicated international trading policies here.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

9.  Bleh   by keta       at Fri 2 May 10:38am score of 2.5 succinct     The only thing more nauseating than Gallic imperiousness is American sanctimony. own your words...   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

10.  It's not just the boycott, people.   by Bocephus       at Fri 2 May 10:38am score of 1.5 informative     This chart tells you a lot: over the past six months, the dollar has depreciated almost 20% against the euro, owing to relatively looser monetary policy in the US than in Europe, among other things. Boycott or no boycott, that's going to deter tourism and imports. insert Fight Club quote here to demonstrate Freethinking and Nonconformity   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

29.  Slight problem with your analysis   by kbrownecon       at Fri 2 May 2:26pm score of 2 informative   in reply to comment 10     The reason a weaker dollar leads to less tourism and imports is because dollar prices of foreign goods and services rise, because a dollar buys less foreign currency. However, dollar-denominated prices of flights to France and French hotels have fallen, which means that demand for French tourism has fallen so steeply that dollar prices have fallen, despite the price-raising-effect effect of a weaker dollar. In other words, despite the fact that the weaker dollar moves you up the demand curve to a higher price and lower quantity, the demand curve itself has shifted down so much that the equilibrium price has actually decreased. That's a pretty dramatic downward shift in demand.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   31.  Re: Slight problem with your analysis   by flightrisk       at Fri 2 May 3:04pm score of 1.5 helpful   in reply to comment 29     That assumes that only flights to France have fallen. But flights to Europe are cheaper across the board. According to travelocity — from New York, a flight to Paris is $358. But a flight to London is only $235, a flight to Madrid is $362, a flight to Frankfurt is $352, and a flight to Rome is $392. This is my problem with the USA Today article — it assumes that since demand is lower for France, that it is a result of the boycott. However, demand appears to be lower for other European countries as well, including countries presumably not being boycotted. So, without data from other countries, it's typical shoddy reporting to assume that boycotts are working.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   40.  Re: Slight problem with your analysis   by Bocephus       at Fri 2 May 5:34pm score of 1   in reply to comment 29     I think the prices of flights and hotels are a lagging indicator in this case. A significant part of the cost of travel is in goods consumed equally by locals and tourists (e.g., food), whose prices cannot be adjusted downwards as quickly. The weaker dollar relative to the euro makes these harder to purchase. Also, Americans have simply gone abroad less since September 11. France being the world's most popular tourist destination, it is little wonder that prices to go there have fallen so fast. insert Fight Club quote here to demonstrate Freethinking and Nonconformity   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

12.  Pancake flips both ways, honey   by rmurf62       at Fri 2 May 10:43am score of 2 informative     I remember reading in the first halcyon days of the war about South Carolina's brave efforts towards a French boycott. The state legislature passed a bill proclaiming that the good state of South Carolina would no longer be doing business with France. This was immediately pulled out of consideration when they figured out that enforcing this would involve closing 3-4 Michelin tire plants in the state. Like it or not, we're all one big happy multinational conglomerate, and any efforts to mess with this structure is bound to produce some blowback. Me, I do my small personal effort, purchasing incredibly expensive pastries from the snooty Parisian paterisserie across the street from my office. YYYYYYYYYYAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGH!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

15.  Whatever   by jbou       at Fri 2 May 11:27am score of 1     Like the astute person up thread pointed out the dollar is dipping and it helps make business worse for the euro, hence worse for France. In other news the hated Dixie Chicks opened up their US tour last night to a packed house. I guess it goes to show ya that the right wing nuts protests are about as effective as the left wing nuts. I guess we can chalk this up as a victory for rational thought. Arguments have no chance against petrified training; they wear it as little as the waves wear a cliff.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

18.  French Wine   by Ozymandias       at Fri 2 May 12:12pm score of 2 helpful     My wife and I don't usually buy french wine because we feel you don't get as good a value from it (compared to say australian or south american wine). But we've recently been buying only french wine, as kind of our own little anti-boycott.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

28.  You must be able to afford the good stuff, eh?   by coryb       at Fri 2 May 1:54pm score of 1   in reply to comment 18     I find lower priced French wine to be horrid to my (unsophisticated, admittedly) palate. Lower priced Italian wines are divine, OTOH... I'll buy it over locally produced Ontario wines anyday...   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   33.  Re: You must be able to afford the good stuff, eh?   by Ozymandias       at Fri 2 May 3:36pm score of 1   in reply to comment 28     We usually buy stuff that is in the $8-$15 range. I don't think I'd qualify that as the "good stuff". Occasionally we'll splurge on a $20 bottle. So far we've only had a couple of bottles of french wine (we're not real heavy drinkers), but the stuff I've had so far I thought was pretty good.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   51.  Re: You must be able to afford the good stuff, eh?   by TheMCP       at Sat 3 May 8:25am score of 1   in reply to comment 28     Some of the cheapest French wines are actually very good... it's just largely a matter of taste which wines you'll like. I personally have a definite taste for real Champagne. On the other hand I have a friend who thinks it's unpleasant (even the very expensive brands I've been known to buy) and distinctly prefers a cheap Italian alternative that I can't stand. I've also had wonderful wines from Pennsylvania and Georgia too (really!), and I'm told that New York wines are really superb. All of them are quite cheap as wines go.       Tom End of line.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   53.  Re: You must be able to afford the good stuff, eh?   by mrjeff3000       at Sat 3 May 2:57pm score of 1.5 informative   in reply to comment 28     As the NYT recognizes, if you're lucky enough to have a Trader Joe's nearby, Two-Buck Chuck is the way to go. The Charles Shaw wines are relatively dry for inexpensive wines. This puts them in competition with more sophisticated table wines rather than the bag-in-a-box wines. The cabernet, the only one I have tried, is light, pleasant and easy to drink and has little varietal character. It could have been merlot for all I knew. Nondescript would not be too harsh a characterization. Nothing wrong with that: wine is supposed to accompany food and Charles Shaw will do that quite adequately. Someone referred to it recently as the ultimate fund-raiser wine — perfect for large groups of people who really don't care what they are drinking. Oh yeah!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   99.  Re: French Wine   by CaptainLiberal       at Sun 4 May 8:49am score of 1   in reply to comment 18     So, I'm curious. If boycotting French products is stupid, why isn't anti-boycotting products equally stupid? They both tie commercial decisions that effect the workers in France to their government policies. Where are all the replies telling Ozymandias how stupid he is? (Note to Ozymandias: You got used as an example, and I'm sorry. I think people should make buying decisions on a host of factors, including their approval level of politics in the manufacturing company. I personally try to avoid buying from the Chinese, because I don't like the idea of wearing a product made with slave labor. I don't boycott France, because frankly, I think it gives them a level of importance they don't really deserve. I don't drink wine anyway, so I'm not sure what I'd boycott, although Free Republic does have a fairly long list.) Every dream turns into something on a T-shirt -- Shriekback   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   145.  Re: French Wine   by Ozymandias       at Tue 6 May 4:00pm score of 1   in reply to comment 99     Honestly about half of our decision to "anti-boycott" was based on the belief that because of supply and demand, we would be able to try some decent french wine for a better price. p.s. no offense taken   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

23.  Isn't it Ironic?   by Anonymous Idiot       at Fri 2 May 12:38pm score of 2 astute     On the subject of unwarranted and mis-placed boycotts, if the anti-American French position (which was no more extreme than the rest of Europe) warrants such an emotional reaction, why is there no such revulsion against the use of products from Iraq? I guess it's a lot easier for white trash to go without expensive wine than gas guzzling trucks and SUVs. I wish these people would pick up a paper and read once and while.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

32.  Re: Isn't it Ironic?   by zyxwvutsr       at Fri 2 May 3:35pm score of 1   in reply to comment 23     If French grapes were brought to the United States and made into wine by American vintner, would you call it French wine? It's the same with oil: Iraq exports a raw material.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   42.  Re: Isn't it Ironic?   by eduardo       at Fri 2 May 9:13pm score of 1   in reply to comment 23     (which was no more extreme than the rest of Europe) To be fair, "the rest of Europe" did not promise to veto any and all American-initiated security council resolutions about Iraq. J'ai une petite amie avec des tres, tres grandes tetons.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   82.  Re: Isn't it Ironic?   by Anonymous Idiot       at Sat 3 May 11:07pm score of 1 succinct   in reply to comment 42     How dare they use vetoes to serve their interests!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

24.  During the height of the anti-French...   by MAYORBOB       at Fri 2 May 12:41pm score of 1.5 brilliant     ...hysteria, I remember seeing a clip on the news of a group of politicians who had gathered together to pour French champagne down the drain. It was empty the contents of one bubbly after the other interspersed with speeches lambasting the French for their treachery, all ending with a triumphant, "we'll show them." Right, they showed them all right. Probably about $1,000 worth of champagne that was bought and paid for and wasted. Right, I'm sure the folks at Moet can't wait for the next outbreak of anti-French American boosterism. Tending to final details.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

27.  Re: During the height of the anti-French...   by Pravda       at Fri 2 May 1:48pm score of 3 funny   in reply to comment 24     Actually, I have been emulating those patriots by pouring every available bottle of French wine and Champagne down my throat. Seen in the subQ: "For once I have to +Pravda. Scary. - Anonymouse Savant"   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

30.  Works both ways   by Meltz       at Fri 2 May 2:31pm score of 1.5 obnoxious     Every commenter above has ridiculed this boycott as immature and pointless, but I wonder if they feel the same about a European boycott of American goods and people. (Here's a google cached link, I can't find another: http ://2 16.2 39.4 1.10 0/se arch ?q=c ache :kkHvtryJXpcJ:www.salon.com/tech/wire/2003/03/31/boycott/%3Fx+european+boycott+american+goods&hl=en&ie=UTF-8 It's funny seeing so many people defending France, the country that made a folk hero out of a farmer who bombed a McDonald's restaurant. "People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." -Kierkegaard   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

38.  Good point   by coryb       at Fri 2 May 5:18pm score of 1   in reply to comment 30     I'd forgotten that. Maybe because I usually think of McDonalds as a symbol of globalization more than as an American company. Thanks for pointing that out.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   39.  Re: Works both ways   by Patrik       at Fri 2 May 5:19pm score of 1   in reply to comment 30     Most American products over here are usually nothing more then just brand names. The actual products themselves are either produced here in Europe or in Asia. I can't think of any product in daily use that you can hold in your hands and has the label "Made in the USA". The only unique American products we do import from the States are software and entertainment. (And even then, the CD's and boxes they come in are produced here in Europe). Boycotting Microsoft is not a new idea at all and many in the entertainment business where against the war too. In light of this, a boycott of American goods is indeed pointless.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   69.  Re: Works both ways   by Anonymous Idiot       at Sat 3 May 7:31pm score of 0.5 interesting   in reply to comment 30     For the record I am french and this guy (jose bove) didn't bombed a McDonald he just ransacked it. Yes we did made a hero out of him but not only for this reason. The bombing of a McDonald has been done by a nationalist group that want Bretagne to be independent. Now back to the subject. I, personally, couldn't care less about an organized boycott of french product. Go on guys if you feel like it just do it. What you don't know is that you already won the war of hearts here in France. Everybody even the lowliest antiamerican appreciate something coming from you. Wether it is shoes, shirts, drinks, movies, tv shows and so on. The point is yes there is a lot more anti americanism nowadays. But it is instrumentalized by people wanting more exposition in national news. Most people here are not happy because of the way some persons treated us (Mr Rumsfeld not to name him). Whatever happened during this crisis noone here said on tv that american were cold blooded imperialist bastards. From what I can recall there certainly has been some condescendence about the american position but never insults. Also remember it was not a war to liberate people but a war to prevent terrorism from the part of saddam (remember Mr Powell and his anthrax bottle). If the sale pitch had been done well most people even here in France would have approved of a war against saddam even accepting to send our poor half working aircraft carrier or our 2 30 years old planes. Tsef PS: posting anonymous cause not home PPS: I was (and still am) against this war   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   100.  Re: Works both ways   by CaptainLiberal       at Sun 4 May 9:04am score of 1   in reply to comment 69     Whatever happened during this crisis noone here said on tv that american were cold blooded imperialist bastards. No, but according to a poll published in Le Monde, a third of French citizens wanted Iraq to win the war. Speaking as someone who watches the heart of this boycott at Free Republic, that was certainly a prime mover in their decision to boycott French products. Prior to that, they discussed the unfairness of punishing French workers. After that poll was released, they didn't much care anymore. Every dream turns into something on a T-shirt -- Shriekback   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   103.  Huh??!!   by kbrownecon       at Sun 4 May 9:21am score of 1   in reply to comment 100     You mean instead of just mocking Freepers and throwing rhetorical poopie at them you actually read what they have to say??!! And you're actually able to see which events and facts motivate them and thus understand the logic (flawed or not) of their positions??!! You sir, have obviously not read Section 2, Paragraph 5 of the Plastic Handbook, which clearly states: "Freepers (i.e., those who participate in the "Free Republic" message board site) are subhuman groupthinking troglodytes who could not conceivably have any legitimate reason for their vile beliefs. Thus, the term 'Freeper' on Plastic is reserved as a term of derision, to be used when somebody on Plastic mistakenly expresses an unacceptable political position."   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   107.  Re: Huh??!!   by CaptainLiberal       at Sun 4 May 10:09am score of 1   in reply to comment 103     I spend more time reading Free Republic than I do reading Plastic. That's mostly because their volume makes ours look like nothing. They literally post about 50 articles/topics a day. I know you were being funny, but I often feel a little weird when I mention the Freepers here. I feel compelled to keep an eye on them, so I understand where they are coming from. I think it's good to hear differing viewpoints on a regular basis, and it saves me from actually talking to the vast number of Republicans surrounding me, here in Texas. I've also been waiting for them to notice Plastic exists, but they're too enchanted with those goobers over on Democratic Underground to pay any attention to us. That's probably a good thing, as they'd cause the squirrels to burst into flame. All that said, I never post there. They aren't interested in a spirited debate, unless it's between two groups who support Bush and are debating on how to punish France. They would throw me off in a heart beat if I did post, but I lurk out of politeness. They aren't interested in hearing a dissenting voice, and they have the right to enjoy their little club. Every dream turns into something on a T-shirt -- Shriekback   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   113.  Re: Huh??!!   by dfool       at Sun 4 May 3:17pm score of 1   in reply to comment 107     I have been a regular visitor at FR for three years and have been registered there for half that time. I have never been banned but then again I tend not to get involved in flamewars or or post trollish liberal stuff, and I keep my posts restricted to things I know a little bit about — social sciences, New Zealand and the Pacific, military history and issues etc. The problem is of course that generally there is no room for dissent except in a relatively narrow range of subjects that are non-essential to the maintaining of the echo-chamber conservative group-thing. I can argue about the harm done by Free Market reforms in NZ, or about the veracity of radiocarbon dating etc but anyone, obvious liberal, libertarian or moderate conservative will get shouted down if they offer anything but the party-line on Israel, the War on Drugs, Bush etc etc. I have noticed that quite a few of the more small-government/property rights Libertarian voices there post much less than they used to. On the other hand, FR is an excellent clearing house for news — I can go there and see all the big stories from CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, Fox, NYT, WP, LAT, SFC, CT, BBC, SKY News, London Times, Financial Times, Guardian, Independent, Observer, Sydney Morning Herald, The Australian, The Age etc along with headlines from Indian, Malaysian, South African, Chinese papers and so on. Granted one also has to wade through post after post from Newsmax, Seamax, WorldNetDaily, the Washington Times and the Weekly Standard but nothing and noone is perfect :-)   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

43.  Girlcott   by eduardo       at Fri 2 May 9:29pm score of 2.5 astute     First of all, let's not talk about this boycott as if it's going to be the end of the world. If I buy Italian or Californian wine rather than French, i am very much helping out grape farmers (so they're not French, so what?) In fact, France is doing fairly well in the grand scheme of things, so if some (small majority) of people make a point on spending their money on some other nation's exports, it won't kill France, and it will help out some countries that may need it more. Is it silly to boycott France? Yes, and no. No because they're a democratic country — which makes them, in the grand scheme of things, our friend by definition. But yes, in the sense that it was French commercial interests that lead France to act in a rather insulting way toward America — and that's something that affects us, as Americans. When Chirac is ready to veto us in the UN and tear appart NATO on the Turkey issue because his country stands to make money from Saddam, it is only apropriate to remind him that there's money to be made from America and Americans too. I think France is better off selling wine and makeup to Americans than selling arms to dictators — and if a small boycott reminds them of that fact, then all the better for the world community. J'ai une petite amie avec des tres, tres grandes tetons.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

47.  Re: Girlcott   by Linux Ate My Dog!       at Sat 3 May 7:15am score of 1.5 astute   in reply to comment 43     But yes, in the sense that it was French commercial interests that lead France to act in a rather insulting way toward America One cannot but wonder what would have happened to international trade if there was a boycott on US products every time the US acted insultingly over commercial interests. Seeing how Iraq is turning out to be about US commercial interests as well (WMD — where? Pressure on oil markets. Contracts to US firms. And "liberation" of an oppressed people, while touted as a goal, seems to not matter about oppressed countries without oil), one has to wonder why the US couldn't take the difference of opinion in stride. It just doesn't come accross as very adult — a very sore winner, in fact. "He's old school." -- byrne   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   52.  Re: Girlcott   by eduardo       at Sat 3 May 9:16am score of 2 informative   in reply to comment 47     We seem to have experienced such things ! Protesters like Viktor Anpilov, leader of the Working Russia party, spat contempt at the United States and demanded a boycott of American goods. — Moscow Times [Survey] found 17% of French people said they were less likely to buy American, balanced by 4% who said they were more likely. — Ananova We advocate an international boycott of corporate U.S. and British goods to stop the war against Iraq — Global Boycott for peace A coalition of anti-war groups in Pakistan, where fast-foods are popular, launched a boycott against McDonald's and Kentucky Fried Chicken. In Australia, where tens of thousands of demonstrators brought Melbourne to a standstill, "Not-in-Our-Name" activists called for an international shutdown of U.S. business. — Online Journal By boycotting US products, I want to put pressure on the US government to join the international community, complying with the rules of the United Nations and international law. With the military attack and invasion of Iraq in March 2003 the US acted as a rogue state. — MotherEarth Over the past few weeks, several different blacklists of American products have been circulating in Jeddah and elsewhere in Saudi Arabia and other Arab states. A manager of a super market in Safa'a district of Jeddah was quoted as saying: "Sales of American goods have fallen by about 20 per cent and this is set to increase over the next few weeks due to the rapid increase in the number of people who are joining the campaign," he said. — Dawn International Green parties and their supporters will boycott U.S. oil companies as part of a charter of beliefs and principles adopted by the Global Greens 2001 conference in Canberra, Australia on Monday. — CNN Head of the Egyptian Society for boycotting Zionist and American products, Ahmed Bahaa Edeen Shaaban told Islam Online Sunday, July 14, " We call upon Egyptian and Arab citizens to support our drive, especially as far as Coca-Cola is concerned. It is a symbol of U.S. hegemony that must be resisted" — Islam Online, via CorpWatch ISLAMIC leaders at the biggest anti-war rally in Pakistan so far have called for a Muslim economic boycott of the United States and for the Islamic world to sever ties with countries in the US-led assault on Iraq. — News.com.au "BOYCOTT U.S. GOODS": Muslim students shout slogans during an anti-US protest in the eastern Indian city of Kolkata on October 18. An Islamic group, Jamiat Ulema Hind, on Thursday urged Indian Muslims not to buy soft drinks and table water marketed by American firms till the US stopped bombing Afghanistan. — Reuters, via The Hindu ETC ETC ETC ETC ETC ETC ETC ETC ETC ETC ETC ETC. We're not shocked when people around the world take their displeasure with American policies and economic interests by boycotting our products. So one does not need to "wonder what would have happened to international trade if there was a boycott on US products every time the US acted insultingly over commercial interests" because we see it every day. And we deal with it. The French can deal with it too — unless they're so weak that their economy rests on American exports and tourism (in which case they should have thought twice before pissing off so many Americans) — but I don't think that's the case. They'll be fine. J'ai une petite amie avec des tres, tres grandes tetons.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   77.  Profit?   by Prexaspes       at Sat 3 May 9:57pm score of 2 astute   in reply to comment 43     Just out of curiosity, how money was France supposed to be making off Saddam? Let me eviscerate this canard right now. (1) TotalFinaElf never had any contracts to develop Iraq's oil fields. The talks aimed at such came to nothing in 1999-2000. (2) The amount of trade France had with Iraq last year was around $1.5 billion. That's in an economy worth between $1.6 and $1.7 trillion. even during the height of French arms sales in the mid-1980s, they sold at most $0-$50 billion dollars a year to Iraq (France does as much business with China in a month sometimes these days arms sales wise as it did in an entire year with Iraq). (3) France's position had nothing to do with oil. France's position was concerned basically with the idea of checking American power. The confrontation in the UN over Iraq was part of the long-term goal of confronting American power with other states who are concerned by its growth. France has numerous sources to get oil from, including Saudi Arabia, Libya, Qatar, Bahrain, and all the other usual suspects. France's main concern, and I agree with them, is to check American power. The effort put forth in the UN Security Council, along with the Russian, German, and Chinese efforts, was the first salvo in that effort. Viva la France!!! Everyman has two nations, and one of them is France. - Benjamin Franklin   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   111.  Re: Profit?   by Adipic Acid       at Sun 4 May 12:55pm score of 1.5 informative   in reply to comment 77     This series of links kind of demolishes your Point 1. They show contracts and active interest and investment by TotalFinaElf in Iraqi oil development as late as this February: a www.cooperativeresearch.org link a afr.com link a salon.com link To say France's position had nothing to do with the investments in time, money, and connections made by TotalFinaElf is just plain wrong. No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Churchill   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

54.  Frenchifficus Stupididus   by trilobiphicarificus       at Sat 3 May 4:44pm score of 0.5 disingenuous     I myself sure don't appreciate what the French did at all. I doubt America would have totally tried to stonewall the French if they were going after Hussein, or Robert Mugambe, or Kim Jong Il, or whoever. In my opinion, it all boils down to a total unwillingness to help us due to their economic interests at stake. It's easy for any administration to stir up any type of feeling, such as "Yes for war" or "No for war", and Chirac decided to mobilize his french fries against whatever America does. Call me old-fashioned but I don't even care if we had a valid reason to go to war. War by nature is meant to be messy and if it turns out that we killed a ruthless dictator for the "wrong" reason, then OH WELL. The French government wasn't thinking about the Iraqis locked up in Saddam's jails being tortured, the Kurds that were gassed, or the repression of political freedom. All the French wanted was die-hard, rock-solid proof of WMD's or else they planned to try hard to stop the war and protect their Iraqi debts. And as we can now see, it's very hard to find that kind of proof, even with a billion guys on the bround looking. Maybe there were no weapons? There probably WAS at some point, or else the Kurds wouldn't have been gassed, but WHO KNOWS? disingenuous obnoxious overrated annoying   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

62.  Excuse-moi, dr. death   by liu wei meng       at Sat 3 May 6:15pm score of 1.5 astute   in reply to comment 54     if you want to troll, at least check your spelling and your facts, never mind the actual logic of your argument-free opinion. The only country who committed an outrageous, illegal act that caused death and destruction and a global allergic reaction is the US. The French acted morally and legally in this case. Ok, so they also had the usual arrogance and some rudeness about letting everyone know, and that pissed you off. So what. You speculate about the economic motives. The facts are clear. And the only countries profiteering from the bloodshed and terror are the US, the UK and funnily enough, apparently Poland NOT Australia. "[..] stop being such a condescending fuck, tiger." -Vurt.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   67.  Re: Excuse-moi, dr. death   by trilobiphicarificus       at Sat 3 May 7:27pm score of 1   in reply to comment 62     Tank yoo four your berry interesting reply aboot my speeling. I'm not "pissed off" though I was just speaking my mind. And what does troll mean? The idea of plastic is that people get to comment on stories in the news, right? I guess your opinion is different than mine. It's not like I'm out there burning a French flag or anything, or chanting "Death to France!". I got class. Your opinion is obviously one of the disgruntled anti-war people. Were you at one of those violent "peace" protests? disingenuous obnoxious overrated annoying   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   89.  Re: Excuse-moi, dr. death   by liu wei meng       at Sun 4 May 1:25am score of 2 intriguing   in reply to comment 67     Sorry, I assumed your complete lack of any argument, and the overflow of regurgitated half-wrong opinions could only mean you were trolling. I misoverestimated you. Especially since you even had the gall of doing three really "classy" things: 1) You made a completely ridiculous statement about possible US reax to a French invasion of N Korea or Zimbabwe. Not only would the French not invade (even if they could), the US would rightly step in — like most of France's allies. That is not an argument, but a joke. 2) Apparently you still believe the spin that the French refused to join the pillage of Iraq for economic reasons (think about it: who is making the money from the destruction, occupation and rebuilding?) ...and what is more: even if the French did also have economic considerations for not joining the invasion: since when is standing up for your beliefs between allies a bad thing? War is always the worst solution. If your allies don't agree with you, it doesn't mean you have to strongarm/blackmail them (like the Eastern Europeans) or defame them....the word diplomacy does NOT mean "everyone follows US wishes or better watch out", herr Rumsfeld. 3) The third and most galling point is that you regurgitate some of the worst propaganda and spin that is out there.... you believe that bullshit about disarming Iraq because it "threatened" the US was a just cause for war..you also rehash the justification that the Saddam clan killed and tortured with impunity (which is true, of course, but not a reason to invade!). So what is the situation now? Hundreds of innocent people (if not more) have died. Saddam's henchmen could not have done a better job at destroying the infrastructure. The "liberated" Iraqis hate the liberator's guts. Democratic structures are not in place. Occupying US marines are shooting protesters in one or two areas. Ethnic tensions are near explosion. No WMDs to be seen, except the impact of US clusterbombs, the MOAB, the bunkerbusters with depleted uranium warheads and other weapons that have been or should be classified as WMDs. The global public opinion of the US is in the toilet, Europe even increasingly weary, the UN and the UNSC has been undermined and damaged. You probably also believe that Hussein is the terrorist responsible for 9/11, am I right? You're right, I find that disgruntling. It's fine to disagree. But if you just have opinions that you saw on your TV screen till you believed them and no argument or other logical structure to back it up, you do not disagree, you make yourself a troll to yourself....in other words: There is a fine line between trolling and downright, classy stupidity. Oh and yes, I was one of the many many millions of people who peacefully demonstrated against the war, even before it started. There was no violence, just the biggest global protest ever against a war — even before it started. "[..] stop being such a condescending fuck, tiger." -Vurt.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   117.  Re: Frenchifficus Stupididus   by kuuba       at Sun 4 May 7:41pm score of 1   in reply to comment 54     Call me old-fashioned but I don't even care if we had a valid reason to go to war. War by nature is meant to be messy and if it turns out that we killed a ruthless dictator for the "wrong" reason, then OH WELL. So, it's ok for a war to be messy? How would you like to see bombers and cruise missiles over the home of the brave? How would you like a messy war in Boston? But, I understand you. It's easy to dismiss the horrors of the war when it doesnt happen in your street. I remember the stories my grandparents told me about the last war over in my corner of the world. Running away from your home, hiding in basements, hoping that a bomb wont hit you, losing relatives, losing your land, losing everything you ever had, seeing your city get burned to the ground and losing your hearing and left leg to a grenade. The collective American memory doesnt have such memories. It has memories of liberating Europe, being heroes, saving private Ryan and generally just kicking a lot of ass. I guess war seems like fun and games to you. It really is not.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   118.  Re: Frenchifficus Stupididus   by kuuba       at Sun 4 May 7:41pm score of 1   in reply to comment 54     Call me old-fashioned but I don't even care if we had a valid reason to go to war. War by nature is meant to be messy and if it turns out that we killed a ruthless dictator for the "wrong" reason, then OH WELL. So, it's ok for a war to be messy? How would you like to see bombers and cruise missiles over the home of the brave? How would you like a messy war in Boston? But, I understand you. It's easy to dismiss the horrors of the war when it doesnt happen in your street. I remember the stories my grandparents told me about the last war over in my corner of the world. Running away from your home, hiding in basements, hoping that a bomb wont hit you, losing relatives, losing your land, losing everything you ever had, seeing your city get burned to the ground and losing your hearing and left leg to a grenade. The collective American memory doesnt have such memories. It has memories of liberating Europe, being heroes, saving private Ryan and generally just kicking a lot of ass. I guess war seems like fun and games to you. It really is not.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

56.  Geography Lessons Required   by meehawl       at Sat 3 May 5:09pm score of 2.5 informative     "More than half of U.S. consumers say they would take into account whether a company is from a country that did not support the U.S. invasion of Iraq before buying stock, according to a Fleishman-Hillard/Wirthlin Worldwide poll of 1,000 adults," O'Dwyer's PR Daily reports. "Consumers who advocate and have taken part in boycotts of goods made in those countries were found to be white, mid- to upper-income, conservative Republicans, according to the survey." There is some confusion, however, among those surveyed as to country of origin of many brands. For example, 64 percent said Grey Poupon mustard is French (it's from the U.S.). Despite its well-chronicled PR efforts, French's mustard was identified by 29 percent of respondents as French. Seventy-eight percent said Universal Pictures is a U.S. company (it's owned by France's Vivendi). Then there's the 42 percent who said Saab is German (originally from Sweden, it was bought by General Motors), the 55 percent who said Bayer is from the U.S. (German), and the 70 percent who said Heineken is German (it's brewed in the Netherlands). Mike Rogers www.meehawl.com   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

65.  a question for you. well, two.   by liu wei meng       at Sat 3 May 6:30pm score of 1.5 intriguing     Especially the Americans: Any boycotts against Russian or German products? Just interested. There seems to be a weird split here: From the posts and from the media reports, I see an ongoing psychological issue for many Americans with the French here (?), and amazing restraint against the other peacemongers. Yet when I look at the bad-asses and storylines in Hollywood films I constantly see two things: 1) Evil steely-eyed Germans in Nazi uniforms bringing humourlessness and holocaust 2) Russian mafiosis & other ex-General types selling Plutonium to (insert terrorist organisation of choice here) But not that many treacherous, lecherous Frenchies. I don't get it! Surely not because of the veto speech by Chirac? What gives? Is this orchestrated from Washington? (Disclaimer: the poster is an Australian of German background.) "[..] stop being such a condescending fuck, tiger." -Vurt.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

72.  Re: a question for you. well, two.   by manos       at Sat 3 May 8:58pm score of 1   in reply to comment 65     I think there are a lot of reasons France is getting the worst of this jingoistic War Fever. For one thing, there's the perception that they're rude and arrogant; I would imagine that some people think France opposes the war just to be difficult. Germans and Russians may be the evil supervillians in movies, but the French are the snooty butlers and maitre d's who get pushed into swimming pools. In addition, Germany and Russia don't exactly have a history of pleasant relations with the US. France, meanwhile, has long been considered an Ally. Americans love to ridicule the speed with which the France surrendered in World War II and the fact that we had to liberate them (of course, the I'm not sure the statute of limitations on France liberating America from the British had run out at that point). This makes France's anti-war stance feel like even more of a betrayal. So there's a brief history of France-hating, as far as I understand it. In short, it seems the result of no single offense, but rather a series of many perceived slights. Once again, I point the blame squarely at tight pants.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   76.  1960s Boycott   by Prexaspes       at Sat 3 May 9:47pm score of 1   in reply to comment 72     People tend to forget that the US boycotted France in the 1960s after de Gaulle stuck a finger in LBJ's eye by making a speech about hoe the US needed to get the hell out of Viet Nam. Furthermore, there is a long history of disliking as well as liking France in the US going way back to the revolution, the XYZ affair, etc. The country's mood changes with the seasons of international affairs (remember the hatred for the "red" Chinese in the 1950s, but the American love for China in the 1940s?). Americans, like all people, have VERY SHORT historical memories generally (unless they were occupied or enslaved for hundreds of years, but even at that the memory they do have is generally clouded and mostly made of myth). In two-three years, no one will give a shit about this anymore, just like they got over (and totally forgot about) their anger concerning de Gaulle's comments in the 1960s. Also, what I find intriguing is this: if anger was so deeply entrenched one would expect more than 1 in 5 of people who normally buy French products (I'd love to see how they identified that sub-population BTW) would be "boycotting" their products. Furthermore, as another poster pointed out, most people don't even know what the hell a French product is (e.g., Grey Poupon) — which makes me wonder whether people are boycotting French dressing, without realizing that French dressing doesn't come from France. Oh and one more thing. Remember in the 1980s, the major push by folks like niall to boycott Japanese products (remember all the Japanese car shamshings)? You saw how far that got. Vive la France!!!! Everyman has two nations, and one of them is France. - Benjamin Franklin   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   90.  Re: a question for you. well, two.   by liu wei meng       at Sun 4 May 1:32am score of 1   in reply to comment 72     Too right, I forgot about those waiters..maybe because I love to loathe them, too. Garcon! Cheers. "[..] stop being such a condescending fuck, tiger." -Vurt.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   96.  Re: 1960s Boycott   by Anonymous Idiot       at Sun 4 May 4:18am score of 0.5 nuanced   in reply to comment 76     Americans, like all people, have VERY SHORT historical memories generally Americans have short memories because they are pap-fed fat-assed self-centred morons. They are not like all people, they are scum.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   102.  Re: 1960s Boycott   by CaptainLiberal       at Sun 4 May 9:21am score of 1   in reply to comment 76     most people don't even know what the hell a French product is Amusing as this canard is, if you look, you'll have little to no problem finding lists of French made products. I recommend you look over on Free Republic, where they post that list on a nearly weekly basis. Frankly, I was surprised at how many of those uber-Republicans actually drank enough wine for it to make a difference. They seem to really enjoy, with some surprise, Australian and Spanish wines. The worst part of this for the French, is that many of the boycotters will never go back to French wine, because Australian and Spanish wines are cheaper and still good, but it took the boycott to convince them to try something other than French wine. Every dream turns into something on a T-shirt -- Shriekback   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   120.  Re: 1960s Boycott   by Prexaspes       at Sun 4 May 8:47pm score of 1   in reply to comment 102     I hate to break it you, but the US market hasn't been a major market for French wines for quite a long time. You might have herd of this place called California — most of American wine purchases are of American wines. Oh, and about 3% of France's GDP dervices from agricultural products including wine. France's international trade is based on trade with Europe, not the US. Why people can't get that through their fat heads, I dunno. Everyman has two nations, and one of them is France. - Benjamin Franklin   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   101.  Re: a question for you. well, two.   by CaptainLiberal       at Sun 4 May 9:16am score of 1   in reply to comment 65     Americans have never liked and respected the French as a whole. The French feel the same way about us, I am sure. The two countries have been waging cultural war on each other for years and years, from EuroDisney to the French language police. Americans, strangely, respect Germans and Russians. Maybe it's because they fight better, which is a pretty ridiculous reason. Maybe it's because they don't spend nearly as much time snarking about "loud, ugly" Americans. Maybe it's because Germany and Russia still have things Americans want. Honestly, I don't know. But the idea that the war is the only thing causing hostility to the French is just naive. America and France have always had a love/hate relationship. As for movie stereotypes, the French don't often show up because Americans find it laughable that anyone would be afraid of the French. All of the ugliness between the French and Americans has lain there under the surface for years, and this conflict has dredged it up to the light. Every dream turns into something on a T-shirt -- Shriekback   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   109.  Re: a question for you. well, two.   by bitekman       at Sun 4 May 11:03am score of 1   in reply to comment 101     I think it's because, at heart, we're both imperialist countries. We both fundamentally believe the world would be a better place if it widely adopted our cultures. I'm full of bees...who died at sea -- Sparklehorse   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   130.  !!!   by Schweinhund       at Mon 5 May 7:28am score of 1   in reply to comment 109     why does the last post not have a score of 5? true true true! and about this boycott... i heard nothing about it. we only heard about 'freedom toast', 'freedom fries' and 'champagne down the drain'. even though america is the only remaining 'passive imperialist' power (supporting all economic issues with diplomatic pressure and military force only when 'necessary') with the PNAC as a shadow cabinet controlling a religious fanatic (i only say religious fanatic because nothing else comes to my mind when i think of george bush, apart from "i don't preread my speeches", "there ought to be limits to freedom" and "nookoolar"), i can not be mad at or afraid of a country whose diplomats and people behave that immature. ps: there recently was a pro-war demonstration in berlin. under the mottoes "more war for everyone", "cheering until war comes" and "war is fun", some 500 people in camouflage marched through berlin. the committee responsible for organizing the demonstration is called "responsibility now!", issues the motto "peace is war" and demands: - the massive armament of all troops in the civilized world - the immediate invasion of Iraq, Iran, Syria, North Korea, Venezuela and other countries - a world of eternal security - not only indirect, but direct participation of German troops in Iraq and elsewhere - armed securing of free markets worldwide - total monitoring of everyone everywhere — everyone's guilty until proven otherwise i have not decided until now whether to participate in this committee, but it would sure help the american — german relationship a lot, i suppose, as i heard our firms whine about lost deals, too... if you got too much time at your hands, check: http://www.schoener-krieg.tk http://www.verantwortung-jetzt.tk   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

66.  Bonjour, tristesse   by mrwarmth       at Sat 3 May 7:07pm score of 1.5 interesting     France doesn't sell enough goods in the US to be truly vulnerable to a boycott. Only their wines, cheeses, clothes and cosmetics make it over here. I know there's a lot of money in fashion, but even there the French are outsold by the Italians. France's industrial goods go to Europe and Africa, not here. Rather than worry about the effect of the boycott, which will be negligible, perhaps it's more enlightening to reflect on the fact of it, and France's surprise at its existence. I can't remember a serious boycott of French goods — ever. Nor can I remember such strong anti-French feeling in this country. Everyone points to the the teensy-tiny flare up of anti-French feeling when they didn't allow our planes to fly over France to bomb Libya in '83, but that blew over in a week. It consisted of some jokes on Johnny Carson, and that's about it. But this time it's quite different. Paris-Match a few weeks ago, in its Oscar coverage, have an interesting quote from a French actress who lives in LA. She said, "It's better to be Bulgarian here than to be French." What's interesting about that comment is that you'd be hard pressed to find any anti-French sentiment in Hollywood, yet clearly she felt something. Here's why this wave of anti-French sentiment is so important. It signals to France that Chirac badly miscalculated the political situation. He is trying to play DeGaulle, but he is too much of a moron to see that DeGaulle (and those who followed him) could play their little games with the US and not suffer anything as a result, because of the Cold War. No matter how the US felt about France, we needed their support in that war, so we let a lot of shit slide. Chirac assumes this state of affairs is still in effect. So he thinks he can play the same games. LOL. The US doesn't need France for anything anymore. France's influence in the world is nil outside of Europe and perhaps Cameroun. We don't need to get along with them, nor do we have to put up with the same kind of nonsense as in the past. French surprise at our reaction confirms this analysis, since clearly they were not prepared for it. They all thought they could play the same games, but they can't. It's also rather rich for a people who constantly mock and insult the US (which is entirely their privilege, by the way) to be shocked and surprised that we are finally fighting back. The boycott is nothing. THe big thing is that we no longer see France as an ally, and we are quite willing to hurt them big time. Say what you will about the wisdom of this, that is what is happening. Note how carefully Bush is singling out France in the post-war situation. Bush, or his minions, have publicly exculpated Germany, Canada, Russia and China, saying their opposition to the war will not have any negative consequences. That leaves only one country standing in the penalty box — France. The French are finally waking up to the fact that they are in danger here. Chirac won't acknowledge it, of course, because that would be to admit that his high-spiritied hijinx against the US were not in the best interests of the nation he was supposed to serve. Here's my prediction: Bush is waiting to see the results of the review of documents captured in Iraq. He is going to wait until the full extent of France's collaboration and support of Saddam's regime — post Gulf War I — become known. Once the extent of French hypocrisy is public knowledge, Chirac will no longer be able to claim the fig leaf of political or moral principle to justify his relentless pro-Saddam stance. Then the hammer will fall. I also predict France will lose its Security Council seat, in favor of a seat for the EU in general. That one is coming, and I predict Tony Blair will propose it. Le temps they are a'changin'. -Niall Where is Ratko Mladic?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

74.  Harm?   by Prexaspes       at Sat 3 May 9:23pm score of 1.5 intriguing   in reply to comment 66     Just what exactly is the mighty USA going to do to hurt France? For an eye-opener, think of this — 8.3% of France's trade is done with the US. The EU (~65% of its trade) is France's trading partner (which is of course the idea behind the EU in the first place). Secondly, despite all the talk of the "New Europe" (what the heck is new about Prague or Budapestsomeone will have to tell me) pulling away from the "Old Europe," the "New Europe" is running right into the arms of the EU. Thirdly, the people who are investing in Eastern Europe are not in fact the US, its France, Germany, Belgium, etc. Which is why new Puegeot plants are being built in the Slovak Republic and the like. France has insulated itself from the US economically. Get over your childish, jingoistic thoughts of revenge, because they are not going to happen. "Here's my prediction: Bush is waiting to see the results of the review of documents captured in Iraq. He is going to wait until the full extent of France's collaboration and support of Saddam's regime — post Gulf War I — become known. Once the extent of French hypocrisy is public knowledge, Chirac will no longer be able to claim the fig leaf of political or moral principle to justify his relentless pro-Saddam stance. Then the hammer will fall." chuckle The only place where these so-called documents get any air time are in the Murdoch press — I wonder why his is. I also noticed that at least one of these reports has been proven to be false (the one concerning a so-called attempt by the French government to block a Iraqi National Congress meeting in Paris). The French press spokesman laughed when he heard this accusation, then he provided evidence of its falsity. "I also predict France will lose its Security Council seat, in favor of a seat for the EU in general. That one is coming, and I predict Tony Blair will propose it." The only way this would be possible would be with the vote of France (learn something about how the UN works please). Furthermore, neither Russia nor China would be pleased by such, because they too wish to counter-weight the American empire. Vive la France!!! Down with the American Imperial Scum!!!! Everyman has two nations, and one of them is France. - Benjamin Franklin   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   86.  Re: Harm?   by mrwarmth       at Sun 4 May 12:26am score of 1   in reply to comment 74     The US is going to punish France, first of all, by denying them any role in post-war Iraq. This is a rather large blow to France, since they had a multi-billion dollar agreement signed with Saddam's regime. I doubt that agreement will survive the demise of Saddam. France will be excluded from the Iraqi oil industry, another huge blow to them, robbing them of more billions of dollars. We don't share much intelligence with France anymore, not since we caught one of their generals passing on bombing run information to the Serbs during the illegal bombing of that nation, so we can't restrict them much further than we already do. But perhaps most importantly, we will now systematically deny France any role or forum that would give them the ability to impede our plans. France's only power is the power to prevent us from doing things. This is why they love the UN, and this way they instantly became frantic when the US began it's invasion of Iraq, because they suddenly became completely irrelevant and lost all power over the situation. There is no point in hurting the French economy, since the French themselves are doing such a good job of that. France's ambitions are to be a global political power. The US is about to teach them how far they are from that goal. And that is what will really hurt them. France is the Norah Desmond of Europe, and they are about to lose their studio contract. By the way, I notice you weren't able to refute my claim about Chirac's embrace of Mugabe. Thanks for agreeing with me on that one. -Niall Where is Ratko Mladic?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   104.  Re: Harm?   by CaptainLiberal       at Sun 4 May 9:36am score of 1.5 interesting   in reply to comment 74     Just what exactly is the mighty USA going to do to hurt France? The first step appears to be destroying their international arms market. According to Rummy and crew, shared allies are going to be persuaded to buy cheaper, better American arms and cancel sales of French weaponry systems. I'm damned if I can find the article, but it came out of the Pentagon. The current plan is also to use American political power to push France to the sidelines. In particular, Condi Rice looks like she's willing to include Russia, Germany and Britain in talks while excluding the French. Her line is to ignore Germany, forgive the Russians and punish the French. As for the U.N. security council, American diplomats could easily force a vote to replace France with an EU member. At which point, France would have to boycott adding an EU member to the security council, which isn't likely to make a bunch of friends in the other EU countires, as France would be saying that their position on the security council is more important than having an all-around EU representative. Every dream turns into something on a T-shirt -- Shriekback   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   134.  Re: Harm?   by Revomotor       at Mon 5 May 8:33am score of 1   in reply to comment 74     (what the heck is new about Prague or Budapestsomeone will have to tell me)... "New Europe"... "Old Europe"... ahh... the "Old Europe" thing. I always figured it was just some more of that good old right winger smart ass type of 'watch me be clever' humor. You know as in... A spectre is haunting Europe — the spectre of communism. All the powers of old Europe have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this spectre: Pope and Tsar, Metternich and Guizot, French Radicals and German police-spies. 'ceptin now it's Americanism instead of Communism. Get it? Har har, funny conservative 'irony'. But maybe only paranoid right-wingers are still reading and making allusions to the Communist Manifesto. Or maybe it's just me, and I read more into his jibe than was there (but I don't think so, a lot of right wingers from that camp have really got Commies on the brain). With compassion's iron hook... save me from the terrors of both life and liberation!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   119.  Re: Harm?   by Prexaspes       at Sun 4 May 8:40pm score of 1   in reply to comment 104     "The first step appears to be destroying their international arms market. According to Rummy and crew, shared allies are going to be persuaded to buy cheaper, better American arms and cancel sales of French weaponry systems. I'm damned if I can find the article, but it came out of the Pentagon." They can try, but they will fail. Just last week China signed contracts for sixty more Mirage fighters. And American arms aren't neccessarily better or cheaper. If that were the case, then France wouldn't have an armaments industry in the first place. Everyman has two nations, and one of them is France. - Benjamin Franklin   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   122.  Re: Harm?   by Bocephus       at Sun 4 May 10:43pm score of 1   in reply to comment 119     And American arms aren't neccessarily better or cheaper. If that were the case, then France wouldn't have an armaments industry in the first place. Oh, come on now. France has an arms industry for two reasons: 1. National pride. Why would France have spent so much money developing the Rafale fighter when the Boeing-built F/A-18, which is used by many other European nations and has proven its combat effectiveness time and again, is cheaper on a unit cost basis? 2. Ability to sell to politically sensitive customers. There would be a shitstorm of enormous proportions in the US Senate if Lockheed tried to sell F-16s to China. France sold armaments to South Africa well into the apartheid era, provided a far greater proportion of arms to Iraq under Saddam than any other Western power (of course, the Soviets provided the lion's share of Iraqi equipment), helped to arm India during one of its isolationist periods under Indira Gandhi, and continued to arm Taiwan after its expulsion from the UN and during a period of supposed detente with the PRC. France has produced some fine weapons, yes, but its market has chiefly been nations to whom the Soviets/Russians would not sell in sufficient quantities and in which American companies would be trigger-shy. insert Fight Club quote here to demonstrate Freethinking and Nonconformity   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   92.  Re: Bonjour, tristesse   by zaydoun       at Sun 4 May 1:52am score of 1   in reply to comment 66     -2 Ominous Ziad http://kuwait-unplugged.com   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

75.  Suffering?   by Prexaspes       at Sat 3 May 9:29pm score of 1     Aside from the hyperbole displayed in the article, is their any meaningful evidence that France is somehow suffering do to an American boycott? I suspect that the people who would most readily boycott French goods are also likely to be those people who would not buy them in the first place. Also, keep in mind that only 8.3% of France's overseas trade is done with the US, and that figure has been falling steadily over the years. The whole idea of the EU was to make it a very strong trade bloc that would be free of American influence. And that has largely been a success. Vive la France!!! Everyman has two nations, and one of them is France. - Benjamin Franklin   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

105.  Re: Suffering?   by CaptainLiberal       at Sun 4 May 9:52am score of 1   in reply to comment 75     Republicans appear to drink a fair amount of French wine...or did. It surprised me too, since I think of Leftist intellectuals when I think of wine, but the Republicans have money and like the finer things in life too, it appears. I've certainly seen plenty of Republican women wearing Chanel and Christian Dior, reading Elle magazine, and wearing Lancome makeup. Republican drivers read Car and Driver and use Michelin tires...or they did. There's Bic razors (still partially owned by the French), Bollinger champagne, Dom Perignon, Cartier, Chivas Regal, Club Med, Fina Oil, Givenchy, Maybelline, etc. The interesting thing about many of these products is that they are expensive luxury items. Now, which U.S. poltical party is identified with massive wealth and a petty spirit? I can't say the following is "meaningful evidence" of the effectiveness of a boycott, but it certainly seems that some French think the boycott has been meaningful. Every dream turns into something on a T-shirt -- Shriekback   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   108.  Re: Suffering?   by Tbola       at Sun 4 May 10:57am score of 1   in reply to comment 105     (heard by a fly on a Republican's wall) "I'm so glad I stopped drinking French wine. I like to be an 'impact consumer'. ...Pass the Habanos." Starve them out - block the A.I.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

88.  All You Boycotters...   by charlies       at Sun 4 May 1:19am score of 1     ... are you keeping your tongues to yourselves? Not really a problem you encounter too often, huh guys? We're fighting in a war we lost before the war began.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

106.  Tit for tat for the French boycotting US Goods   by rmo314       at Sun 4 May 10:02am score of 1.5 succinct     Let the French categorically condemn and show by actions that they are not boycotting US goods. From what I have read there was boycotting both in France and Germany. In fact we have "superior" French agitating against US fast food etc. long before Iraq was an issue. Religion: A daughter of Hope and Fear,explaining to Ignorance the nature of the Unknowable - Ambrose Bierce   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

110.  And the French don't really care what we think   by Victor Lazlo       at Sun 4 May 12:19pm score of 1     There is a lot of anger out there, I agree. And it's being directed at the French as convenient scapegoats. Guy loses his job, loses his health care, can't get another job except at lower wages and less benefits. He's mad at someone. Can't be mad at blacks, hispanics, gays, feminists, etc, (unless he's a Republican senator). This behavior on the part of Americans makes us look silly and immature. Bush made a big deal about American sovereignty but he doesn't seem to respect the sovereignty of other nations or the right of citizens in other democracies to have opinions that differ from his. Rather than bold, he comes across as childish and petulant. I have lived in Europe off and on a quarter of my adult life. With the exception of Paris, which is New York on the Seine, I have never been treated with other than courtesy by the French.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

115.  And We Care Less and Less What the French Think   by palmetto       at Sun 4 May 6:09pm score of 1.5 interesting   in reply to comment 110     I don't believe the backlash against the French is merely scapegoat-ism. I was against the war (and still am), but I find that I'm really quite angry with France. Everything I've read has lead me to believe that their so-called opposition to the war had less to do with the war than it did with France trying to check American power, and here's the point, just to see if they could. The whole thing played like a national sport in the French press, and people on both sides of the Atlantic watched it like a tennis match. And to be sure, de Villepin laid the wood to Colin Powell. Hid in the bushes and ambushed him like an expert. Powell looked like an idiot at the U.N. In fact, he had been made into a patsy. I think most Americans missed the diplomatic chess game that was played, but I think most of the French were entirely aware of what was going on. Nevertheless, when all was said and done, many Americans felt genuinely betrayed by France's actions. Whatever one's own feelings about 9-11 and how best to respond to the threat of terrorism, our government decided that a pre-emptive strike on Iraq was necessary. Therefore, France's intransigence was seen not only as a diplomatic quarrel, but as a genuine obstruction to our inherent right of self defense. This is the real reason that some Americans are boycotting French products, and it is the reason that the boycott is likely to last for more than a short time. The episode gave Americans an unprecedented insight into the French national psyche, and we found that the French really don't like, or trust, Americans.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   123.  Re: And We Care Less and Less What the French   by stormbrain       at Mon 5 May 1:10am score of 1   in reply to comment 115     The episode gave Americans an unprecedented insight into the French national psyche, and we found that the French really don't like, or trust, Americans. The one fault in your argument — and perhaps a key to the vitriol so poisoning this debate — is the assumption that there is such a thing as an "American". This may once have been true, but it is now no longer obvious. I would assert that at this point the USA is post-national. Oh let us never ever doubt, what nobody is sure about — Hillaire Belloc Bra-zillll, da da da da da duh da...   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   136.  Re: And We Care Less and Less What the French   by SchrodingersDeadCat       at Mon 5 May 8:51am score of 1   in reply to comment 115     I don't really understand why you think the French government was trying to check U.S. power "just to see if they could." Why couldn't they have been trying to check the U.S.'s pushing for a UN-sanctioned war because they believed the given reasons (i.e. terrorism, WMD) were not well-supported at all. So far, their scepticism still has merit. Do you honestly believe the U.S. was in danger from Iraq and that it was necessary for something to be done in self-defence? Why should the French believe that? All but unmentioned is the fact that few major countries were convinced the American government's arguments for a UN-sanctioned war. I think the U.S. government, by focussing on France, is trying to plant the idea that but for this one country the world would have been ready to pass a Security Council resolution. That, of course, is far from the truth. Even with honey to sweeten the pot, the US and UK realized they weren't going to get the nine necessary votes for a "moral affirmation" and declined to table a resolution. And then there were also China and Russia with veto powers. The Russians were quite clear that they weren't happy with the idea. So why is it only the French who are getting bashed? Trying to make an example out of them suits Bush and Company fine: Americans will forget all the other nations that opposed a UN war, and the governments of other countries will lie low and consider themselves lucky not to be targeted for their lack of support. Of course, anti-French sentiment goes down very well in the U.S.. I've often wondered why. Veering onto complete speculation (if I haven't already done so), I think it's because a lot of U.S. pride (and power) is linked to the successful exportation of its culture. When people criticize the U.S., the retort is almost guaranteed. "If they hate us so much, then why are they wolfing down our movies, our music, our tv shows." It makes Americans feel like the rest of the world really does want to be like them, even when they say they don't. But then, the French are a cultural competitor in all these areas. They consume lots of American culture, but have equally vibrant domestic fare. Makes it harder for Americans to feel smug about their culture — especially when the French aren't known for their modesty. You mentioned that the French don't trust Americans. I would say they don't trust the American government. But then, do you? In the big picture, I think it's stupid of the American government to whip up anti-French sentiment. With all the governments around the world run by thugs, fanatics or dictators, countries with robust democracies should be appreciated, and it's worth stepping back to gain perspective on whether France is good or not for core things, like democracy and freedom of thought, that the U.S. holds dear.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   124.  Re: And We Care Less and Less What the French   by palmetto       at Mon 5 May 1:46am score of 1   in reply to comment 123     The question of whether or not there is such a thing as an 'American' isn't particularly germaine, because the operative notion is the French perception of America and of Americans. That perception is precisely what was exposed during and after the U.N. debacle, and it is, I believe, the font of American bitterness toward the French.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   139.  Re: And We Care Less and Less What the French   by palmetto       at Mon 5 May 9:28am score of 0.5 irrelevant   in reply to comment 123     I don't really understand why you think the French government was trying to check U.S. power "just to see if they could." Why couldn't they have been trying to check the U.S.'s pushing for a UN-sanctioned war because they believed the given reasons (i.e. terrorism, WMD) were not well-supported at all. I think that was part of it. Watching the events unfold at the U.N., it was clear the French thought they had right on their side, as did Russia and China. But the actions of the French were very different in both quantity and character than Russia or China. France was, I thought, flambuoyant in its opposition to the U.S., and I honestly felt like theirs was a gleeful defiance, as though they'd finally been dealt a hand they could win with. For Russia and China, it was just business as usual — America was trying to expand its sphere of influence, and Russia and China were pushing back where possible. In the big picture, I think it's stupid of the American government to whip up anti-French sentiment. With all the governments around the world run by thugs, fanatics or dictators, countries with robust democracies should be appreciated, and it's worth stepping back to gain perspective on whether France is good or not for core things, like democracy and freedom of thought, that the U.S. holds dear. This is an excellent point, and its something I was thinking about this morning. What's most interesting about the Franco-American relationship is how similar we are culturally. It doesn't take very many fingers to count the number of genuine, stable, multi-party democracies in the world, and it is perhaps a mistake to alienate one or two of them for having an independent opinion once in awhile. On the other hand, though, it wasn't the United States that stood in France's way when the Eiffel Tower (complete with 3800 people, two of whom were friends of mine) was destroyed by terrorists. I think that's why so many Americans are taking this personally. This wasn't just another diplomatic row about banana tariffs — this time it was for keeps, and France either didn't realize it, or didn't care.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   141.  huh?   by Schweinhund       at Tue 6 May 1:41am score of 1   in reply to comment 139     why and how do you link saddam and the WTC? because he's an arab? or because he's a secularized leader and OBL is a religious fanatic? no WMD, no Osama connection...just the US gang on some old rival's turf at high noon.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   142.  Re: huh?   by palmetto       at Tue 6 May 2:47am score of 1   in reply to comment 141     why and how do you link saddam and the WTC? I don't, necessarily, but then again old Uncle Saddam was giving $25k cash to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. The point is, whether or not I understand (or agree with) the Bush strategy in 'the war on terror', this was the call they made. The French decided to play obstructionist, and I am suspicious of their motives for doing so.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

121.  France Going Wi-Fi   by Prexaspes       at Sun 4 May 10:41pm score of 1     PARIS An experiment is under way in Paris that aims to turn the city into one huge Wi-Fi hot spot, making it what could be the first large wireless city in the world. A dozen Wi-Fi antennas have been set up outside subway stations along a major north-south bus route, providing Internet access to anyone near them who has a laptop computer or personal desk assistant equipped to receive the signals. The access is free until June 30 but will require paid subscriptions afterward. More here: a www.iht.com link Everyman has two nations, and one of them is France. - Benjamin Franklin   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

129.  But the French were proven correct!   by sunderland56       at Mon 5 May 7:06am score of 1.5 succinct     Before the war, the French said that there was not enough evidence of chemical/biological/nuclear weaponry to go to war. Now that the American and British troops have taken over the country, and have had a few weeks to closely investigate anything, anywhere, at any time — they still haven't found any evidence. Lots of conventional weaponry, sure — but they were legally allowed to have that. So it seems to me that the French have been proven 100% correct. But somehow, I don't see Bush publicly apologizing, and asking for the boycott to end — do you?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

140.  Re: But the French were proven correct!   by palmetto       at Mon 5 May 10:06am score of 1   in reply to comment 129     Now that the American and British troops have taken over the country, and have had a few weeks to closely investigate anything, anywhere, at any time ? they still haven't found any evidence. A few weeks? Iraq is a country, not a closet. Hell, I've been trying to find my hammer for longer than you've given them. I don't know if there are any WMD's in Iraq or not, but I do know its too early to declare the search over.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]