RETHINKING OUR POSITION ON FRANCE...
 

<BR>There seems to be no shortage on how many (American) tourists feel about France. A certain faction on this board will defend the French position regardless of logic. Up till recently I've been pretty supportive and I still feel that anyone should travel to anywhere they want. However, a little objective research is causing me to rethink my position.<BR><BR>Each passing day seems to offer more evidence of France’s clandestine business relationship with the strong-arm regime of Sadaam Hussein in Iraq. <BR><BR>Although France was a contributor to the unanimous passing of U.N. Resolution 1441, it seems that the Chirac government has been doing literally BILLIONS of dollars in trade in spite of the international community’s “strict” sanctions.<BR><BR>This of course puts a new, albeit unflattering, light on France’s anti-war posturing, taking it from the illusion of some sort of high-minded humanitarian stance to a decidedly lowbrow, power-of-the-almighty-Euro, lets-make-a-deal genre. There is the also underlying contention that, by continuing to do business with Iraq, France is selfishly buying its own security from terrorism. Chirac is, apparently, the master of duplicity.<BR>By 1982, Iraq accounted for 40 per cent of all France’s arms sales. Mirage fighters, Exocet missiles and armored vehicles included.<BR>While the French now claim to want to give the UN weapons inspectors more time, there is no mention of the fact that they abstained when it came to setting up the harsher inspection policy in 1999. <BR>It is no secret to the global neighborhood that a 1997 pact with Sadaam sets up an unholy alliance for future oil sales to France, Russia, and China. Furthermore Iraq is admittedly in debt to Russia for what works out to be about 9 billion (U. S.) dollars and to France for at least 6 billion. Then there is the business about the French selling components to build a nuclear reactor to Iran a while back.<BR><BR>Francophiles say that a boycott of French products would be nothing more than a hollow gesture and would prove nothing. However, taking note of the fact that the American deficit in relation to France was about 9 billion dollars at last count (America spent 9 billion more in trade with France than what France bought/traded from the U. S.) then of course a boycott might make very good economic sense indeed and, at the same time, be extremely effective. While some think of a boycott as simply no longer buying French food and wine, others point out that the U. S. is one of France’s biggest clients for their aerospace equipment production, which amounts to 1/3 of that nation’s income.<BR><BR>FOX Network’s Dick Morris said (3-11-03) that IF France indeed veto’s the latest Allied resolution that, rather than simply boycotting French products, the real protest would be for American travelers to take France off of their itinerary. France is the number one destination for American travelers and accounts for billions of dollars of revenue directly from the pocket of Americans into the pockets of the French.<BR><BR>Those who decry America’s stand on Sadaam’s regime as simply an economic consideration and those who have been carrying signs saying “no blood for oil,” will have to find a new poster boy for their cause as Chirac is now definitely tainted and damaged goods.<BR><BR>Do the French people support Chirac? Hard to say, since generally (if not unbelievably) 20% or so still vote a communist ticket. By contrast, at or over 20% recently voted for Jean-Marie Le Pen, a neo-fascist. That leaves barely half of potential French voters to decide between Jacques and his next electoral opponent, hardly a resounding majority. The French apparently need to decide which side of the fence they’re on before irreparable damage is done in the relationships with the rest of the “free” world.<BR>

So you are basically saying don't go to countries that don't agree with the American stance? You all don't rule the world you know.

Of course we do...you drink Coca Cola, wear Levis, watch American movies, listen to American music, drive Fords and love Pizza Hut, Burger King, McDonalds, visit Euro disneyland and that pales imitation of a beer..Budweiser is the fastest growing beer in Europe! (tongue in cheek here!)<BR><BR>And btw a boycott of French travel is growing!<BR><BR>Just remember the French have always been there when they need you!<BR><BR>US

My wife and I truly enjoy Paris and the Loire Valley. But I can tell you we will not give any of my tourist money to them for a long time to come.<BR><BR>DiAblo hit the nail on the head, Chirac only wants to protect the illegal trade he and France have been running with Iraq and try to prove that he is a newly crowned leader of Europe and the world. Guess what, he and France are not. <BR><BR>I can't wait for Bush to call him out and make him veto us, so we can see him for the fraud he is.

<BR>Very well done DiAblo.<BR>Cancelled my trip to France back in early February.

It's always wonderful to argue motives, since they can't be proven. Regarding Iraq, there is legitimate debate over the best method to handle that situation. France is not an ally of Saddam Hussein and it is tiresome to see attempts to cast things in that light or to imply them. Should we have boycotted Canada because they haven't supported our long-standing and wrong-headed policy on Cuba? Did it make sense to give China most favored nation trading status in light of their record on human rights, Tibet, etc.? Foreign policies of all nations are filled with duplicity and protection of various parochial interests. In addition, they are often voiced in the direction of specific constituencies. It seems to me that too many people are saying that other people and nations are entitled to their opinions, but only so long as they agree with their own. The United Nations is not a world governing body; it is simply a political body that gives a good indication of how certain policies are playing in the international community. When you ask questions, you must be willing to listen to the answers and when you want agreement you must be able to make a clear and convincing case. That could still happen with respect to the U.S. position on Iraq, but it clearly has not happened yet.

Very well spoken, Flyboy, a heartfelt, intelligent, and sincere reply. On many points I agree. America’s policy with Cuba has been and still is outlandish, but that’s a nearly 50-year-old (albeit still pertinent) case. Giving China “most favored nation status” is a cruel and ugly joke. There is no argument that many nations disagree on many issues.<BR><BR>But I am not discoursing on “motives,” at all and must’ve made my conclusions unclear. I am basing my opinion on actions.<BR><BR>Without refrencing back to other “ancient history,” figures (Stalin, Kruschev, and their ilk) it is rare to find the duplicity of an “ally” such as were CURRENTLY (as in, “right now”) with France. The wolf in sheep’s clothing ploy has rarely been so obvious as the scenario playing out AS WE SPEAK with Chirac. For him to present himself as a voice of reason and compassion is really nothing short of ludicrous and if France’s trade position with Iraq doesn’t constitute an alliance I’d be hard pressed to know what does.<BR><BR>LisaJ seems to have deliberately mis-read or mis-interpreted my post, not unusual on this site as there is an almost rabidly blind devotion to all thing French on Foders, based in part I think on sentimental images created in old American films and in cheap romance novels. I have been to France and have enjoyed the country, the culture, and the history immeasurably. I was planning a trip for fall and may or may not go, depending of course on how all this plays out. Up till this point I have never had any feelings against France or, for that matter, the French government.<BR><BR>But unfortunately Chirac seems determined to be the new DeGaulle and that is a questionable aspiration at best. Both pattern themselves, at least to a degree, after the great French “hero,” Napoleon Bonaparte, one of history’s most reprehensible characters. (As is often pointed out, Napoleon single-handedly invented the concept of the concentration camp in his single-minded attempt to dominate the world!)<BR><BR>But rest assured that I am indeed basing my observation purely on fact rather than emotion. In doing so I for one find it harder and harder to empathize or sympathize with the French position and worry that Chirac is setting himself up to irreparably damage his county’s position and reputation not only with the United States but with the Western world in general.<BR>

&quot;France’s clandestine business relationship with the strong-arm regime of Sadaam Hussein in Iraq.&quot;<BR><BR>Have you any idea how many dictators we have done business with in the past for &quot;the good of our country?&quot; How about selling arms to Hussein in their war against Iraq; arming the Taliban in their war against Russia; keeping the Shah in power in Iran; we were even buddies with Noriega and then put him in jail; I'm particularly fond of Reagan's hanky panky in Central America.<BR><BR>That's all okay, but France is out of line?<BR><BR>No amount of twisted explanations will ever make me understand that difference!

Giovanna<BR>If I understand your argument correctly, you are not defending the French position. Instead, you are saying that because the US engaged in reprehensible alliances in the past, it is alright for the French to do so now. Interesting logic!

I unfortunately have to go on my French holiday this year. We are booked to stay in a Gite and the two weeks stay is already paid in full plus our ferry crossing. I do not have grounds to cancel as my insurance would not cover a change of mind so I stand to lose all my money.<BR><BR>I have to admit that if I start to feel any worse about this I can see myself taking the loss just to avoid the place.<BR><BR>To my mind this was not just about asking France's support for war it was about keeping a united front to force Saddam Hussein into a corner.<BR><BR>We had the bully on the ground with his arm twisted behind his back when France stepped forward and allowed him up again and tried to make us all feel as if we were wrong to tackle him in the first place.<BR><BR>France have made war more likely.<BR>France have actively pursued a strategy which lets Saddam Hussein off the hook.<BR>France have helped reduce the power and the credibility of the UN.<BR><BR>This is about more than a childish &quot;I don't like your policies, so I won't visit your country.&quot; As some people have suggested. This is about France taking the world back several steps. This is about France exhibiting standards that are dangerous and disloyal in the extreme.<BR><BR>We cannot allow them to feel that we will just countenance yet another act of disloyalty and double standards from them. This time they have gone too far and no amount of pretty villages, gourmet food and fine wines can undo how many of us feel right now.<BR><BR>Buzzy

Giovanna,<BR><BR>Wow, that's a real revelation and who cares!<BR><BR>As Disareli told the Queen, &quot;your majesty Great Britain has no permanent friends or enemies, only permanent interests.&quot;<BR><BR>And if some two bit dictator serves our interests at the time...so be it!<BR><BR>US

ET: Interesting take on my post. Actually I was pointing out the lack of logic in the original poster's argument. How can he fault another country for doing what they feel is in their best interests, when we constantly do the same thing and then wonder why so many countries hate us.<BR><BR>This whole boycott mentality (even down to fries and disinterring WWII servicemen)is ludicrous. The boycott on Iraq has done nothing to topple Hussein and instead created hardships for the people; the ridiculous boycott on Cuba only services to give Castro an excuse for their bad economy, i.e. in the US's fault. <BR><BR>I just don't understand, &quot;Do as I say, but don't do as I do.&quot;<BR><BR>

'The boycott on Iraq has done nothing to topple Hussein and instead created hardships for the people;&quot;<BR><BR>Giovanna.<BR><BR>And Mr Hussein could have ended it any time during the past 12 years!<BR><BR>Instead he took whatever $$$ he made fom oil during that period, legally and illegally, and he enriched his own coffers and built numerous palaces.<BR><BR>Yo want to blame someone darlin...blame the bad guy!<BR><BR>US

&quot;And if some two bit dictator serves our interests at the time...so be it!&quot;<BR><BR>That's terrific. I have no desire to play brain games with someone who is unarmed.<BR><BR>

Then you need not get into the battle!<BR><BR>It must be tough for you to compete when you have a vacuum packed ear separator instead of a brain!<BR><BR>BTW, go hide and watch..this will be over soon and then you can come back out and continiue your bitchin!<BR><BR>US

Giovanna,<BR><BR>Here is an example...see if you can follow along!<BR><BR>We had a very goood friend in the ME named the Shah of Iran. Now he was a dicator, just like the Saudis, and a number of leftists like Ted Kennedy and his cronies just couldn't wait to have him removed from power. <BR><BR>So, we remove our support and sure enough you lefties got your wish...the Shah was gone...and guess what replaced him?<BR><BR>You guessed it.... an anti American theocracy of wacko Muslim fundamentalists that led to a whole bunch of Americans being hostage in that God forsaken hell hole.<BR><BR>Now, the only good thing to come of this high and holy desire to eliminate our friendship with that evil dictator the Shah was that that the naive Jimmy Carter screwed it up so badly that we were able to elect Ronald Reagan!<BR><BR>US

This is a purely political post and has no business being on this board. The fact that you used the word &quot;tourists&quot; to cover your tracks doesn't cut it.<BR><BR>I think Fodor's needs to start hitting the delete button. I, for one, am tired of these posts. It's not enough we have to see it on televsion 24 hours a day, but here too on a travel forum?<BR><BR>Yes, I can understand the posts directly related to travel and the impending war, but not the posts that are a soapbox for someone's political views.<BR><BR>Let's move on, shall we?

I will soon buy a new French car, I bought lots of French wine yesterday, and I am thinking of travelling to France soon. Just to let you know that there are also people that believe that the French do the right thing in opposing this unjust war, that is only about America's oil interests and Bush' re-election.

OK... Just because a country has very different views on things to USA ie doesn't have Mcdonalds on every street corner is that justification to go to War with them...who's next North Korea?<BR>Azerbeijan??<BR>Uncle Sam I hope that you have the opportunity to fight on the front line alongside some of the brave people who do so because they are told to do so.<BR>Give your cheap shot arguement for war to the parents and brothers and sisters of the people who come back home in body bags.<BR><BR>Muck

I don't want war but for me France's voice at the UN is like Satan preaching in St. Peter's. France's bloodthirstiness in WWI, it's cowardice in WWII, it's evil military in Algeria, its UN resolution-breaking nuclear testing in the Pacific, and its everlasting anti-Semitism makes me fervently wish that a more legitimate and moral hand was carrying the banner of Peace. I'm sure my father, an Army Chaplin who died in Normandy in 1944 and who hated war, would wish the same thing.

May I suggest that those of you who are planning to boycott France watch the video &quot;9/11&quot;? This is the film that was shown on CBS, which was made by two FRENCH brothers: <BR><BR>&quot;On September 11, 2001, brothers Gedeon and Jules Naudet, who for the past three months had been making a documentary on the Engine 7, ladder 1 firefighters, were in Lower Manhattan when Jules suddenly heard a roar from above and turned his camera upward. In doing so, he captured the only known video of the first plane striking the World Trade Center. Cameras still rolling, Jules followed the firefighters into the heart of what would soon be known as Ground Zero. Gedeon also rushed to the scene with members of Ladder 1. Over the next several hours, Gedeon and Jules Naudet captured events as they unfolded on video, including footage from inside the North Tower as the rescue effort was underway and dramatic scenes of escape in the minutes before the building collapsed.&quot;<BR><BR>It's available for rent at Blockbuster (and probably just about anywhere else) and proceeds from rentals benefit the Uniformed Firefighters Association Scholarship Fund. <BR><BR>http://www.blockbuster.com/bb/movie/details/0,7286,VID-V+++265838,00.html?<BR><BR>I'm guessing that the members of the FDNY are able to distinguish between individual French people such as the Naudet brothers and the decisions made by Chirac.<BR>

sjoerd,<BR><BR>You are so right it is about oil!<BR><BR>French oil contracts worth $65 billion are sure as heck influencing the French!<BR><BR>And if it were about oil for the US...we would have recommended that the sanctions be lifted so we could buy it..and if we really wanted oil we'd just take over Canada or Mexico..they're closer and we wouldn't need our miltiary to sit in a desert!<BR><BR>Looks like you missed that one...nice try!<BR><BR>US

Charlie: First, so sorry to hear about your father's death at Normandy. However to characterize all French as cowards in WW2 is grossly inaccurate. I believe the French death toll at Normandy was several hundred thousand, as was ours. Also, the French Resistance movement played a key role in the liberation of France, knocking out vital German communication networks and raising havoc with the SS.

Its the least they could do after they rolled over!<BR><BR>US

Charlie, I would love to know your take on all that is going on right now. I still wonder how protesters can think (which is what I assume by their stance) that iraqi life is not worth saving as much as French life. I heard yesterday that 60,000 iraqi babies die each year because of the conditions there...whether it is SH or containment...things are &quot;broke&quot;...they need fixing. Got any any answers? <BR><BR>

wren: How many Iraqi's(and Americans) will die when we invade Iraq under the guise of &quot;making the world safe for democracy&quot;.

Beatle,<BR><BR>No one knows...but what we do know is that Sadam has killed over 1,000,000 of his own people and you are protecting him with your naivette!<BR><BR>BTW, still want to be a human sheild...tough to catch one of those cruise missles!<BR><BR>US

Beatle,<BR>Brush up your English. <BR><BR>First of all, there is no &quot;guise.&quot; GWB and gang have made it quite clear why we're going into Iraq. Did you miss something?<BR><BR>Secondly, no one knows how many people will die when we go into Iraq. Perhaps in your infinite wisdom you can tell me how many people will die at the hands of SH between now and when we invade? How many people will die if we don't remove the murderer SH? Apparently you have all the answers, so I'm eagerly awaiting your telling me the answers to these questions. <BR><BR>It sounds like you think you know what's best for the Iraqi people. I'm interested to hear what that's based on. If the Iraqi people are dancing in the streets after we liberate Iraq will you eat your words?

My husband Walter, is at this very moment removing the french doors in our diningroom. When will this madness stop?

Beatle, If GWB is protective of unborn life, don't you think it is only rational that he would be as protective of American and Iraqi life? Use you brain!!!!!

wren,<BR><BR>that would be a first<BR><BR>US

Magnus- First, I wholeheartedly agree with your description of the admin as &quot;GWB and gang&quot;. Oh my yes, they made a clear-cut case for war, I guess the rest of the world was wrong, or didn't get it- oh, excuse me, except for the Brits(who are wavering) and Spain. Wow, what a summit!! Estimating death tolls, come on, I won't bother asking you to tell me in your &quot;infinite wisdom&quot; how many young American soldiers lives will be cut short. One thing that the &quot;gang&quot; has made very clear is that they have no clue as to troop strength in Post War Iraq. Oh sure, we'll have the photo ops with some Iraqis in the streets. But as that fades, what are the chances of a new wave of terrorism- Sorry, that's not my infinite wisdom, that came from the CIA Director. Speaking of the CIA, I'm not convinced that they could not take out SH. <BR>Wren: Re &quot;use you brain&quot;- well &quot;me&quot; brain tells me your &quot;abortion rational&quot; is bizarre.

Unc- I admit, that was a good comeback to wren- you showed on another board you could laugh at yourself, so can I- No matter the diverse opinions, I guess everybody has at least some common ground.

Yawn boring- Reread my post and you should be able to comprehend that I question how &quot;clear&quot; the admin. makes a case for war when so many countries aren't buying it. Anyone can criticize a post- at least back it up with your opinion on the subject being discussed. Otherwise, it becomes ironic when you use the words foolish and idiot. Even though I may not agree with Magnus, and we may have a spirited debate, I don't believe we've stooped to name calling.

Re: Magnus' comment: &quot;GWB and gang have made it quite clear why we're going into Iraq.&quot;<BR><BR>People usually make a &quot;clear&quot; case for something when you agree with their position. <BR><BR>On the other hand, if you don't agree with their position, you usually don't see it as quite so &quot;clear.&quot;<BR><BR>To me, Dubya's rationale for going into Iraq seems to have shifted as much as his rationale for tax cuts.

Beatle,<BR><BR>you're assumption is fallible. You appear to be making the assumption that the countries that are opposing the actions Bush proposes are doing so for honorable reasons...that is not so!<BR><BR>France...$$$ and European power<BR>Fermany...Ditto<BR>Russia..$$$<BR>China.. .jst because its the US<BR>unalligned...they despise anything we do<BR><BR>Now many of these countries if hy were pushed to the limit may agree...but this is not really about the right or worng of Bush's policy..this is about personal interests!<BR><BR>If not how can you explain chirac virtually saying no before the UK and the US had a proposal off the press!<BR><BR>US

Unc- Some good points. Yes, I'm sure France and Germany are thinking about their multi billion dollar contracts, but also they(and others) are not convinced of the &quot;threat&quot; factor that Iraq poses, and the timetable that has been imposed, and a concern about post war Iraq etc.etc. War is essentially giving up, but I guess that has been argued many times here. And it's just too late to discuss how &quot;honorable&quot; our justification is for war. Re your last statement, even though Chirac said he would oppose any proposal with a timetable, I tend to agree that he shouldn't declare his opposition until the proposal is completed in its entirety. <BR>That's it-early morning tomorrow.

Daily exports of Iraqi oil during January 2003:<BR><BR>Americas: 1.20 million barrels<BR>Europe: 0.43 million barrels<BR>Asia: 0.14 million barrels<BR><BR>Source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/iraq.html<BR><BR>Riddle: WHO is largest importer of Iraqi oil?<BR><BR>Hint: starts with &quot;U&quot;

wmer<BR><BR>did you say somethng?<BR><BR>US

Magnus- Re &quot;when the people of Iraq are dancing in the streets will you be eating your words.&quot; I think that is way out of line. Isn't that the equivalent of me asking you &quot;If our troops suffer heavy losses without finding MWD, if post war Iraq is a nightmare, if we see a new wave of terrorism, will you eat your words.&quot; How absurd! Instead I would assume that you would share my sadness re the above scenario. Likewise, if we have minimal losses, if the Middle East is &quot;stabilized&quot;, if we see less terrorism, we would share happiness. Regardless of one's political leanings, it's not a case of &quot;anyone eating words&quot;