i don't care if i get flamed. can someone tell me why france is required to support the usa? and don't you dare say WWII. apples and oranges. france was invaded during the big one. we are not being invaded. yes, we were attacked on sep 11, 2001, but there has yet to be any evidence that proves iraq was involved. in fact, why is ANY country required to support the usa? and when a country decides not to support us, why do they become the enemy? "i'm sorry you feel that way mr. chirac, but we understand and respect your decision." that is what our official response should be. anything less than that is counter productive. sure maybe behind the scenes we aren't as sympathetic to france anymore, but you can't publicly bash them. does anyone really believe that renaming french fries to freedom fries will cause the french to start supporting us? all that does is drive the wedge deeper. do i think this war is a good idea? no, but that has nothing to do with my feelings on france. every country should be able to make a decision based on what is the best for them without outside pressure. flame away......
See, here's the thing...the more we can get people to focus their critical energy on those dirty French, the less time and energy they can devote to exposing the obvious flaws in the war plan.
I drank a whole bottle of French wine last night in support of my gallic bretheren. I don't feel too good today.
I don't even think France let the US use their air space(please correct me if I'm wrong) during the Gulf War when we were helping a country who was invaded sort of like France was in WWII.
Actually, as a French citizen, I applaud this initiative. Somehow, it always bothered me... a bit..to read "French fries" on a menu. I mean, who wants to be associated with fried potatoes? So, more of these "clever" initiatives are likely to make me more supportive, definitely.
But... but... Cheese-eating surrender monkeys! *must... not... admit Bush's lies* Uhm.... Germans marcing in the shade! *can't afford to... think... about mismanagement of.... war buildup* Freedom fries! Rudeness! *don't ponder... all the useful things... we could be spending... the billions of our tax dollars on* Brigitte Bardot *shut up shut up SHUT UP!!!*
They wouldn't let us fly over their air space when we attacked Libya. France is in Europe. Libya is in North Africa. While they're closer than France and Iraq geographically, I fail to see how this affected anything.
Those French Rep Scelions are avoiding war, and letting Tyrants stay!!!!!! Like saddam or not, he has done its worst, and i think in Ameircas part, it didn't go after him till the End in 1990!!!!! We gave him the ultimatum with sanctions, if he still poses a threat and he does!!!!! Yet, France and other countries who want to get there hands on Investment in Iraq prefer to look the other side. They hymn for Democracy, yet they don't prove it on a day to day basis!!!!! WHat kind of Democracy is French or Russia who is just 13 year old democracy?
Oh yeah, and I really, really like cheese too... And I don't mean California cheese! So, keep boycotting it and it might just become more affordable for me, here, in the US. Keep 'em coming, I am becoming more and more supportive!
the only bit of it that bothered me is was yesterday's "freedom fries" but otherwise it doesn't get at me. if they feel france's lack of envolvment in what our government feels is the proper way to go about removing saddam and they want to impose restrictions on how many US dollars go into their economy then they can do that. if you have a problem with it contact your representatives. otherwise quit whining about it. it's almost like people have forgotten the channels and would rather just complain about everything than try and work the system. how many people on here even contact their representatives often or have any idea what they are voting for in the upcoming weeks?
What irritates me is the hypcrisy of the free-market crowd within the GOP who then call for a boycott of French goods. Isn't the free flow of goods and money supposed to be the panacea that solves all problems ever? If so, why start a trade war just because they're trying to stop some people within our government from starting a war?
my problem is not so much with france but with the way they're going about it. jacques chirac and some french have accused the US of bullying around people and threatening and what not. i agree with that, we have done that. but chirac is doing the same exact thing, he threatened countries that they wouldn't get into the EU for disagreeing with his point, so how is he any better morally than bush? they have an investment in iraq that would be jeopardized if the US was to go to war. they want to protect that investment(which if i were french, i would too) but i don't like it that france and germany or any other country for that matter are looked upon as some sort of saviour for peace when they are just looking out for their own interests, just as much as the US is. there is no higher moral ground here, everyone is out for themselves.
joseph, that's not hypocritical. People have the free choice to boycott or not. I really don't like the promiscuous way in which the word "hypocrisy" is used around here.
I don't think most people mind that France is in opposition to Bush. Allies don't always see eye to eye. But at the least they could for once come clean as to WHY they're so against the US/British plans for Iraq. They (like the Germans & Russians) have lots of $ invested in Saddam Hussein and they potentially will lose much dough in a US-led invasion of Iraq. The French using high-mindedness to cloak their true intentions is what pisses people off. IMO France would NUKE Iraq once they got paid.
France has repeatedly said why they are opposing the move to war. They think containment has worked fairly well, and therefore they see no real reason for war. And since their philosophical attitude is that war is always bad (Chirac - "war is failure"), then they feel that the status quo should continue. The only thing which would change this is if the weapons inspectors (ie Blix) said that they couldn't disarm Iraq. If that happened, they would accept that the status quo has negative implications (ie Saddam having and developing more WMD), and would then support war to remove these implications.
Hussein is an aggressive tyrant & pathological liar who is hiding weapons from these "gentleman" inspectors ("if WE don't see it, he must not have it"). Iraq is roughly the size of California and Hussein is known to have weapons traveling on vehicles. If they give inspectors 2 more months, how much will turn up? A few missiles here or there to appease nations like France. Hussein will throw them a bone to keep them happy and the US/Britain off his back. I love how Hussein says that he has no weapons in violation and then when caught with them he says - well OK, i'll just destroy them then. Which is it? He has illegal weapons or he doesn't? UN resolutions have not deterred him in the past and unless they're backed up by an explicit threat of force (bombing commences on X date at midnight), they are ultimately useless.
Yeah, but so is Bush. Is Canada justified morally, and by international law, if they invade? Given the Heisman Bush has been giving Fox, I'll bet Canada would have more success making it a two front war than we have.
Let's see: "We'll impose a 'free market' regime on YOU, but we ourselves refuse to be bound by it". That's hypocrisy in my book.
If it's the GOVERNMENT enforcing the boycott, that's one thing. I suppose. But these are citizens acting privately. A boycott of this type is obviously an EXAMPLE of how free markets operate.