French Anti-Americanism: Substitute Foreign Policy

[abu afak]

They're proud to be anti-American in the birthplace of chauvinism
February 20 2003

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/...638360721.html

As a nation with a strong sense of destiny, France has reacted in a visceral way to US posturing over Iraq, writes Sophie Masson.


France is in the news again, alternately pilloried and praised, depending on your point of view. This is not one of those articles that does either, though for the record I disagree with French Government policy in the stand-off over Iraq.

First, myths should be laid to rest. France is not uniquely prone to surrender - many other territories surrendered to the German war machine, including the Channel Islands, which are part of Britain.

France is not, either, the home of idealism and human rights as depicted by the left: the extremist republican coup d'etat of 1792, which unilaterally destroyed the monarchy and precipitated hideous civil war, killed real governmental reform in France, and gave it instead an authoritarian and divisive legacy which endures to this day. Equally, France is not uniquely selfish in its foreign policy.

The facts, now. It's not all about oil, though sanctions-busting French companies, such as the oil giant TotalFinaElf, have large direct contracts with the Saddam regime. It's not just about avoiding a backlash from extremist French Muslims; the state is happy to crack down hard on them when it wants to.

Equally, though France has never been close to Israel, it knows full well that the Arab world is fickle, that the leader you may be dealing with today may be assassinated tomorrow.

It's not just about an opportunistic domestic agenda, an attempt to recover the ground lost to Le Pen, though President Chirac knows that the combination of harsh new police laws and throwing France's weight around internationally will help to rally both left and right to him.

The basis to France's stance is visceral. Most French people will cheerfully admit to being anti-American. This is not a case of a resentful inferiority complex, as can be the case in Britain and Australia, for instance. France has a sense of destiny, a "civilising mission", just like the United States; it is as a rival, not as a client, that French anti-Americanism expresses itself.

Official France sees itself as representing one view of human development, and the US as another. It's not sheer power we're talking about, but an "empire of influence". Jacques Chirac put this clearly last year when he made a speech at a Francophone conference in Africa, on the idea that France could present a "light to the nations".

But there are older rivalries at work here too. For many, maybe most, French people who couldn't care less about such notions as France as the Home of Human Rights, it is the idea that the US is the inheritor to British world power that really exercises them.

The Anglo-Saxon hegemony represented by the alliance between Britain, Australia and the US only serves to confirm that theory. Recent opinion polls in France show clearly that Chirac is on a winner, challenging the Americans and reclaiming French pride (though the sardonic national character also leads many people to cast extreme doubt on his motives).

Repositioning France as the driving political and philosophical motor of the European Union also plays a very large part in French policy. This was nakedly revealed by Chirac in his extraordinary outburst on Tuesday against the central and eastern European EU applicants who had dared to express an opinion contrary to France's - and the threat by his Foreign Minister, Michele Aliot, that these applicants could still face a blocking referendum "in any member state".

The EU has always been seen by French politicians as a French project, regaining international influence for France, diluting "Anglo-Saxon" influence, and nobbling Germany's imperialism. It is no accident that the Belgian capital, midway between France and Germany, is the administrative capital of the EU, and oft-disputed Strasbourg, on the Rhine frontier, is its parliamentary capital. Repelling Anglo-Saxon influence is why Britain's entry into the EU was so fiercely resisted.

Today, the changing composition of the EU means control is slipping away from France and its unsteady ally, Germany. Mounting bilateral declarations against war, stymieing US efforts to get a united front against Iraq, attempting to intimidate small European applicant countries, even trying to block NATO military aid to Turkey - these are all signs that France is adopting an aggressive policy towards protecting its own idea of the EU.

The central and eastern Europeans, as well as Turkey, are seen in Paris as stalking horses for the US, and high-handedly threatened because of this.

But there is no sign that the countries concerned will sit meekly in their corner waiting for Papa Chirac's permission to speak.

The letter signed by the eight full EU members who overtly support the US stance is another gauntlet thrown down. The struggle may well become bitter, and has probably halted any attempt at closer political union in the EU.

Meanwhile, France is willing to pull out all stops to regain its influence. That is its right. But whether this stance is wise, admirable or even realistic in world terms is quite another matter.

Sophie Masson is a French-Australian writer. Her latest novel, The Hand of Glory, posits an alternative Australia in which France has settled Western Australia.

[TDidier]

Some falsh affirmations but not a surprise from you.
A bit oriented but true for a part...

Originally posted by abu afak
They're proud to be anti-American in the birthplace of chauvinism
February 20 2003

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/...638360721.html

As a nation with a strong sense of destiny, France has reacted in a visceral way to US posturing over Iraq, writes Sophie Masson.


France is in the news again, alternately pilloried and praised, depending on your point of view. This is not one of those articles that does either, though for the record I disagree with French Government policy in the stand-off over Iraq.

First, myths should be laid to rest. France is not uniquely prone to surrender - many other territories surrendered to the German war machine, including the Channel Islands, which are part of Britain.

France is not, either, the home of idealism and human rights as depicted by the left: the extremist republican coup d'etat of 1792, which unilaterally destroyed the monarchy and precipitated hideous civil war, killed real governmental reform in France, and gave it instead an authoritarian and divisive legacy which endures to this day. Equally, France is not uniquely selfish in its foreign policy.

The facts, now. It's not all about oil, though sanctions-busting French companies, such as the oil giant TotalFinaElf, have large direct contracts with the Saddam regime. It's not just about avoiding a backlash from extremist French Muslims; the state is happy to crack down hard on them when it wants to.

Equally, though France has never been close to Israel, it knows full well that the Arab world is fickle, that the leader you may be dealing with today may be assassinated tomorrow.

It's not just about an opportunistic domestic agenda, an attempt to recover the ground lost to Le Pen, though President Chirac knows that the combination of harsh new police laws and throwing France's weight around internationally will help to rally both left and right to him.

The basis to France's stance is visceral. Most French people will cheerfully admit to being anti-American. This is not a case of a resentful inferiority complex, as can be the case in Britain and Australia, for instance. France has a sense of destiny, a "civilising mission", just like the United States; it is as a rival, not as a client, that French anti-Americanism expresses itself.

Official France sees itself as representing one view of human development, and the US as another. It's not sheer power we're talking about, but an "empire of influence". Jacques Chirac put this clearly last year when he made a speech at a Francophone conference in Africa, on the idea that France could present a "light to the nations".

But there are older rivalries at work here too. For many, maybe most, French people who couldn't care less about such notions as France as the Home of Human Rights, it is the idea that the US is the inheritor to British world power that really exercises them.

The Anglo-Saxon hegemony represented by the alliance between Britain, Australia and the US only serves to confirm that theory. Recent opinion polls in France show clearly that Chirac is on a winner, challenging the Americans and reclaiming French pride (though the sardonic national character also leads many people to cast extreme doubt on his motives).

Repositioning France as the driving political and philosophical motor of the European Union also plays a very large part in French policy. This was nakedly revealed by Chirac in his extraordinary outburst on Tuesday against the central and eastern European EU applicants who had dared to express an opinion contrary to France's - and the threat by his Foreign Minister, Michele Aliot, that these applicants could still face a blocking referendum "in any member state".

The EU has always been seen by French politicians as a French project, regaining international influence for France, diluting "Anglo-Saxon" influence, and nobbling Germany's imperialism. It is no accident that the Belgian capital, midway between France and Germany, is the administrative capital of the EU, and oft-disputed Strasbourg, on the Rhine frontier, is its parliamentary capital. Repelling Anglo-Saxon influence is why Britain's entry into the EU was so fiercely resisted.

Today, the changing composition of the EU means control is slipping away from France and its unsteady ally, Germany. Mounting bilateral declarations against war, stymieing US efforts to get a united front against Iraq, attempting to intimidate small European applicant countries, even trying to block NATO military aid to Turkey - these are all signs that France is adopting an aggressive policy towards protecting its own idea of the EU.

The central and eastern Europeans, as well as Turkey, are seen in Paris as stalking horses for the US, and high-handedly threatened because of this.

But there is no sign that the countries concerned will sit meekly in their corner waiting for Papa Chirac's permission to speak.

The letter signed by the eight full EU members who overtly support the US stance is another gauntlet thrown down. The struggle may well become bitter, and has probably halted any attempt at closer political union in the EU.

Meanwhile, France is willing to pull out all stops to regain its influence. That is its right. But whether this stance is wise, admirable or even realistic in world terms is quite another matter.

Sophie Masson is a French-Australian writer. Her latest novel, The Hand of Glory, posits an alternative Australia in which France has settled Western Australia.

[Oh Jerusalem]

We must've been sleeping to allow months to pass by without posting this.

Tripe a la Mode
Charles Krauthammer
March 12, 2004

WASHINGTON -- Look. I know it is shooting French in a barrel. But when yet another insufferable penseur -- first Chirac, then de Villepin, now the editor of Le Monde -- starts lecturing Americans on how they ought to conduct themselves in the world, the rules of decorum are suspended.


In an article in The Wall Street Journal, Jean-Marie Colombani, who wrote the famous Sept. 12, 2001, Le Monde editorial titled ``We are all Americans,'' gives us the usual more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger lament about America's sins: We loved you on Sept. 11. We were all with you in Afghanistan. But, oh, what have you done in Iraq?

This requires some parsing. We loved you on Sept. 11 means: We like Americans when they are victims, on their knees and bleeding. We just don't like it when they get off the floor -- without checking with us first.

Colombani glories in Europe's post-Sept. 11 ``solidarity'' with America: ``Let us remember here the involvement of French and German soldiers, among other European nationalities, in the operations launched in Afghanistan to ... free the Afghans.''

Come again? The French arrived in Mazar-e Sharif after it fell -- or as military analyst Jay Leno put it, ``to serve as advisers to the Taliban on how to surrender properly.'' Afghanistan was liberated by America acting practically unilaterally, with an even smaller coalition than that in Iraq -- Britain and Australia, with the rest of the world holding America's coat.

But then came Iraq. ``The problem was not so much the war itself, but the fact that it was launched without U.N. approval,'' Colombani explains.

Rubbish. The Kosovo war was launched without U.N. approval and France joined it. Only two wars have ever been launched with U.N. approval: the Korean War (an accident of the Soviets having walked out of the Security Council on another matter) and Gulf War I.

It is touching to hear such legalistic objections to deposing a man who has killed more Muslims than any person on earth -- particularly when the objection is offered from a pose of superior international morality from a country whose commandos once blew up a Greenpeace ship monitoring French nuclear tests in the South Pacific.

Moreover, Colombani complains, George Bush ``lied about the weapons of mass

destruction -- the official pretext for the war -- as now publicly established by recent investigations.'' More rubbish. The investigations have established that the weapons have not been found and may not exist. The claim that the president knew so at the time, and lied about it as a ``pretext'' for war, is a malicious falsehood.

There is more. Colombani grieves that the Bush administration has taken an ``ax'' to the two great pillars of Western success post-World War II: containment and free trade.

Colombani decries the fact that containment has given way to pre-emptive war. But containment was designed for the Soviet Union, which died 10 years before Bush even took office. Only a fool would advocate containment against the new threat that has arisen in its place: terrorists and terrorist states acquiring weapons of mass destruction.

When dealing with undeterrables (like al Qaeda) or undetectables (like an Iraq or an Iran passing WMDs to terrorists) there is no such thing as containment. There is no deterrence, no address for the retaliation. There are two options -- do nothing and wait for the next attack, or get them before they acquire the capacity to get you. That is called pre-emption.

Warming to the ``ax'' theme, Colombani then decries the Bush administration's ``return of protectionism.'' This (plus pre-emption), ``is why John Kerry is, a priori, perceived with so much sympathy'' in Europe.

Good grief. Only an ignoramus oblivious to what is happening in American politics could prefer Kerry over Bush on grounds of free trade. Has no one told Colombani that the Democrats have made protectionism -- attacking everything from NAFTA to the WTO -- a theme of this campaign, radically reversing the Clinton policies of the 1990s?

It is not John Kerry's fault that he is endorsed by a Frenchman. (Or by Kim Jong Il of North Korea, whose media have been running some of Kerry's speeches verbatim!) But Kerry has made the major -- indeed, only discernible -- theme of his foreign policy ``rejoining the community of nations'' and being liked abroad once again.

Which is why he does not just court foreign support, he boasts about it. ``I've met foreign leaders, who can't go out and say this publicly,'' he told a Hollywood, Fla., fund-raiser, ``but boy they look at you and say, `You gotta win this one, you gotta beat this guy.'''

For the world. For France.

[Oh Jerusalem]

Faster than you can say "Je t'aime"!

FRANCE TO NORMALISE FINANCIAL RELATIONS WITH IRAQ AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE
Received Monday, 28 June 2004 18:27:00 GMT

PARIS, June 28 (AFP) - France is to normalise its financial relations with Iraq as quickly as possible, the finance ministry said Monday following the transfer of sovereignty to an Iraqi government.

Finance Minister Nicolas Sarkozy would ask Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin to approve as soon as Monday measures putting an end to restrictions in place since 1990, the ministry said in a statement.

The existing restrictions required government approval for foreign exchange operations, transfers of capital or other transaction for Iraqis or Iraqi residents.

"This abrogation, which follows the logic of the transfer of sovereignty to Iraqi authorities, marks the normalisation of financial relations with this country. It takes effect immediately." the statement said.

The US-led coalition in Iraq formally ended Monday its 14-month occupation of the country, handing power to a caretaker government in a quickly convened ceremony 48 hours early.

[abu afak]

France - Kerry's Israel problem
by Caroline Glick
JPOST

Kerry can choose to be a friend of France or he can choose to be a friend of Israel.

The arrival Wednesday morning of a special El Al flight at Ben Gurion airport with 200 French Jews immigrating to Israel was a beautiful thing. As they disembarked, to the buzz of news crews from around the world, the new arrivals broke out in song and dance as Prime Minister Ariel Sharon welcomed our brothers and sisters home. It was enough to turn the greatest cynic into a sobbing idealist.

The scene was significant not simply because every time a Jew moves to Israel we see the Zionist dream come true. It was significant also because it came just a week and a half after Sharon, in a moment of moral leadership and clarity, told the Jews of France, "If I have to advocate to our brothers in France, I will tell them one thing: Move to Israel, as early as possible."

In the first six months of 2004, the French Interior Ministry recorded 510 anti-Jewish attacks or threats. During the whole of 2003, only 563 such incidents were reported. Yet, in the wake of Sharon's call for French Jews to come to Israel, where they will be able to live proudly, if not safely, as Jews, French President Jacques Chirac went ballistic.
If there is anything the French hate, it is moral clarity.

Sharon's remarks coincided nicely with France's success in bringing the entire European Union on board in voting for the UN General Assembly resolution condemning the security fence. That resolution was itself founded on the International Court of Justice's ruling that Israel has no right to build the fence to protect ourselves from Palestinian suicide bombers.

It is no coincidence that France was acting in an overtly hostile manner toward the Jewish state when Sharon made his declaration. In recent years, rarely a day has gone by without some French leader doing something to make common cause with those devoted to the annihilation of the Jewish state.

From the French ambassador to Britain's statement calling Israel a "sh-tty little country," to former French Prime Minister Michel Rocard's declaration that the creation of Israel was "a mistake", to its persistent support of Arafat despite mountains of evidence implicating him as a current and active mastermind of terror, France has made it plain that it is an opponent, not an ally, in the Arab-Muslim war to destroy us. So yes, it was sweet to see 200 Jews telling us that they see their future here and not in France.

The problem with France is not simply that one in five French citizens voted for an avowed Holocaust-denier in the last election. Nor is it just that almost every week we hear another story about a synagogue torched, a rabbi beaten, a Jewish cemetery or Holocaust memorial defaced with swastikas or Jewish children terrorized on the subway or on their way to Hebrew school. Nor is it that France hates Israel. The French hating Israel is nothing that keeps anyone here awake at night.

The problem with France, rather, is that it has appointed itself arbiter of global justice, and in so doing inserted itself as a key factor in the US presidential race.

Senator John F. Kerry, the Democratic presidential nominee, has made his objections to Bush administration's foreign policy a defining issue of his candidacy. During this week's Democratic national convention in Boston, speaker after speaker took to the podium and declared that under a Kerry presidency, the US would not act "unilaterally." A Washington Post analysis of Kerry's basic message to American voters noted that Kerry's major theme is a "restoration" of US positions during the 1990's under the Clinton administration.

As former Clinton administration official and current Kerry foreign policy adviser Richard Holbrooke put it to the Post, the Bush administration advocated "extremist ideas" that had "never had a voice in the policymaking bodies of the executive branch." One such idea, the Post paraphrased, was "acting unilaterally." But what does "acting unilaterally" mean? It does not mean "going it alone." After all, there are several dozen other countries actively involved in US operations in Iraq as well as in Afghanistan.

Neither does "acting unilaterally" mean that in Iraq the US is acting outside of a clear UN Security Council mandate. Ahead of the US-led operations in Kosovo in 1999, in which Holbrooke played a key role, Russia used the threat of its Security Council veto to prevent the US from taking action under a UN umbrella. Yet no one has ever accused the US of acting unilaterally in Kosovo.

What "acting unilaterally" actually means to Holbrooke and Kerry is that the multilateral coalition Bush assembled in Iraq does not include France. It was France that prevented a UN Security Council resolution backing the US-led invasion, and it was France that led the EU and NATO to reject US requests to forge coalitions under whose aegis the US would lead the war against Saddam's regime.

With its UN Security Council veto, its membership in NATO and its leading position in the EU, France has fashioned itself the indispensable ally for Eurocentric Americans. This it has done in spite of the fact that France has opposed almost every single US foreign policy initiative since September 11. Yet, in spite of France's overt hostility, administration critics still believe that the US cannot garner a politically palatable coalition for action on the international stage without French involvement.

One of the truly disturbing aspects of France's success in so positioning itself is that the veneer of respectability of a French-approved coalition is so thick that even when such coalitions fail abysmally, no one seems to notice. Thus, according to a recently released report by Human Rights Watch, it was the French forces who were most responsible for NATO-led Kosovo force's decision to remain garrisoned as thousands of Kosovar Christians were evicted from their homes and villages by Albanian Muslims even as they were begged to come forward and protect these minorities. But who's noticing?

It is hard to know precisely what a Kerry presidency would hold in store for Israel specifically.

(On Israel.....)

Yes, it is true that he seems to pay inordinate respect to outspoken Israel-bashers such as former President Jimmy Carter and Carter's National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski. Then again, Bush appointed the harshly anti-Israel Marine General Anthony Zinni to be his Middle East mediator shortly after assuming office.

Yes, it is true that Kerry seems determined on forcing Israel back to the negotiating table with Arafat and using Dennis Ross and Martin Indyk as his emissaries in spite of the colossal failure of every policy the two men advocated during the Clinton presidency. But Bush has adopted the Road Map, which formally, if not practically, gives the EU, Russia and the UN the status of arbiters in the Palestinian conflict with Israel.

One thing though, is clear enough. In the unrelenting emphasis Kerry places on a certain brand of "multilateralism," he is providing undue, unreasonable and unacceptable legitimacy to a country that does not wish Israel well.

Kerry can choose to be a friend of France, or he can choose to be a friend of Israel. But this is one area where he can't have it both ways.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...=1006953079897

[Mediocrates]

Perhaps Israel is not in a position to throw down a challenge to the US to make a choice like that.

We excoriate every other country for having the incestuous relations with arab states that the US has with Saudi Arabia. Even Ruth Matar of the W.I.G. says Bush is not a 'friend' to Israel. Certainly they have their own unique agenda but when hardcore Zionists working deeply with Christian Zionists and evangelists in the US say that Bush's relations with the Saudis are bad for Israel you can accept that as true.

The Roadmap is a Saudi plan. The entire miliary infrastructure of Saudi Arabia is US built and funded. Soon Saudi Arabia, the GCC and later on Egypt will have approximate technological military parity with Israel.; the results of a nearly 100% American built and engineered effort. The US appears to be creating something like an arms race with themselves in the middle east for no obvious reason. So I think it is false to say that Kerry or any president is going to have to 'choose' between Israel and France. No whoever that is is going to have to choose between Saudi Arabia and the US.

[abu afak]

Perhaps Israel is not in a position to throw down a challenge to the US to make a choice like that.

We excoriate every other country for having the incestuous relations with arab states that the US has with Saudi Arabia. Even Ruth Matar of the W.I.G. says Bush is not a 'friend' to Israel. Certainly they have their own unique agenda but when hardcore Zionists working deeply with Christian Zionists and evangelists in the US say that Bush's relations with the Saudis are bad for Israel you can accept that as true.

The Roadmap is a Saudi plan. The entire miliary infrastructure of Saudi Arabia is US built and funded. Soon Saudi Arabia, the GCC and later on Egypt will have approximate technological military parity with Israel.; the results of a nearly 100% American built and engineered effort. The US appears to be creating something like an arms race with themselves in the middle east for no obvious reason. So I think its a false to say that Kerry or any president is going to have to 'choose' between Israel and France. No whoever that is ising to have to choose between Saudi Arabia and the US.

Great Points medio.

I am very suspect of Bush's relationship to the Saudis.. His yearly Thanksgiving Guest/Bandar, especially.
(the Family oil Biz with Saudis .. 'The Carlyle Group'.. who was flying on 9/12? etc)

I did post here in another string (with great Protestation) that [How HAD?!] The Saudi Peace Plan become the 'Roadmap'.

Bush, however, if he is to be trusted at all (as a Religous Right Christian Zionist), I believe has distanced/distinguished himself recently.. in that call.
I believe approving of at least some Israeli settlements/an adjustment to the 1967 Line and a rejection of 'Right of Return'.. he has said everyone must recognize current 'the situation on the ground'.. etc.

[Mediocrates]

America's relationship to Israel is a like a new stepfather who's a little scary, maybe done time, drinks a little, has some weird friends and who ogles his stepdaughter in a creepy way. Ok the rent and the bills are getting paid, no one's getting molested but there is definitely some dysfunctional power and control things going on.

My only point is that little Israel should think long and hard about its long term relationship with the US. Nothing like drawing away but something like a normalization among peers. The aid stream is already supposed to thin out as per mutual agreement and they have to establish a different basis with which to create their foundational relationship. Israel is not a vassal state and the hanging the sword of Damocles over their heads in the form of a UNSC veto is not the way normalized relations among states works.

Moreover, as Bibi is struggling with now, American aid and supervision of that aid fosters internal inefficiency and bogs down the economy of Israel in the form of over dependence on the govt, and defense sectors. Those actually are not growth high margin industries when they are owned and operated by the state which if I'm not mistaken occupies about 44% of the GDP. Radical reform in the economy has to be undertaken without the sense that Uncle Sam will fix it if goes bad. Because Uncle Sam isn't all that reliable and some of his friends are pretty dangerous scary people.

So it is in Israel's best interests long run to have a different complexion on its relationship with the US. It should continue to have defense agreements but ones that are beneficial to both parties in both countries and in the public and private sectors. Israel should not have to get approval to sell technology to anyone and it should be free to enter into strategic relationships with countries besides the US such as India, Taiwan, Korea, Brazil, Eritrea, Angola and a host of countries Israel already deals with on a limited basis.

[cerulean]

What's hard to understand is how the French (in terms of govt) believe themselves to be worth listening to and taking into consideration. It would be foolish for any American president, Dem. or Repub., to give them credence at all, and Kerry is just setting himself up should he happen to win. What foreign policy triumphs give them any moral authority?

[takeo]

all you peopledon't have a clue, neither about France nor French policy.
It's extremely ungratefull to bash France after we helped you in Afghanistan (a problem you created yourself by the way)
We said there weren't any WMD's in Iraq or it was upon the inspectors to decide, we said this policy would encourage terrorism, we said you didn't had the right to interphere in Iraqi politics and we said Iraqi's wouldn't be gratefull. we were right each and every time. You blame we supported Saddam, perhaps this is true, but better supporting Saddam than Supporting Saoudi Arabia as you are doing. (of course not a word about this). You constantly focus on French problems such as the Northafrican minority (only less than 10%, so far all the "france is becoming an Arab state" nonsense) and the "decaying society and economy" (according to UNDP still one of the richest and wealthiest countries in the world and much less poverty, criminality etnic problems etc. compared to the us). We are a "communist"" country because we have social security and our employees are protected by the law>. Fine, good, perhaps you all belong to the upper class or middle class if not you would not be so proud of your lack of care and social security for the poor, disabled, etc.

All this nonsense about France by people who know very little about it, mostly because for once we didn't agree with the US-policy (as well as the rest of the world and even a large part of the American public opinion, and mill, please don't compare our decision to not join the war in iraq with 1939, you should know better) indicates a profound arrogance, a feeling of superiority and incomprehension for the rest of the world.

But the message is understood and received, not only by French but other Europeans as well.
Bush did more to promote anti-Americanism in Europe than even de gaulle or the communists could accomplish. What you did will further strenghten the ties between the European nations, especially when governments such as headed by berlusconi and blair will disappear after the next elections. everyone has noticed the inconsistencies in the hate-speech of Bush and everyone has seen the results, more war and terrorism instead of less. The Bush-policy has failed and Europe was right, this is what puzzels and frustrates you the most. And probably as a result of his failure in his foreign policy Bush will loose the elections, the republicans will loose the elections and ties between France and the US will be restored. But this time the US, even headed by a democratic president, will have a much harder time to convince Europeof its policy. It's clear the US acts as a hostile nation, at least a part of the US, and we should respond properly as well instead of just ignoring it. France took the first step and is abolishing the weapons-embargo against China, we will also continue to invest in Cuba and we should take a much tougher stand against US manipulated crops and meat infested with hormones. most importantly we should continue our effort to establish a joint European army independant of NATO with credible force. the US tried to block and delay it as much as possible but this becomes much harder now.
But Europeans do not hate the uS the same way you hate Europe, because Europeans have the intelligence to make the division between the US-government and the US-society in general. Moore, most musicians, the entire intellectual elite of the US oposed Bush in much stronger terms than Europe ever did, they know the democracy in the US is at stake if the Bush-regime stays in power. perhaps Bush can learn some tricks from his Saoudi friends how to silence this opposition, he already mentioned the possibility of postponing the elections.

newsflash: the christian minority, protected and never been harmed during the last decades, has been targetted several times today. since the American invasion they have been targetted several times and most are trying to leave the country.

[takeo]

you claim France is anti-American but YOU are anti-French. We just didn't like your war in Iraq and we don't like Bush, you hate EVERYTHING about franceand you have organised a fascist campaign of hate and desinformation against our country. you tried to encourage the Jewish community in France to leave or distance themselves from the french government but your efforts have failed miserably. It seems you need a lesson, we should start to take REAL anti-American measures. A 1000 American death soldiers and civil war in Iraq apparently wasn't enough to downgrade your arrogance and selfrighteousness. Perhaps Bush should win the next elections and he should invade Iran, a disaster waiting to happen on a much larger scale than Iraq. Iraq was a defeat for interventionists but since it's a small country perhaps not convincing enough. But since most of the government of Bush consists of chicken-hawks they probably won't risk an invasion of Iran and will instead choose much easier targets such as cuba.

[Olivier]

What's hard to understand is how the French (in terms of govt) believe themselves to be worth listening to and taking into consideration.

.. mm I have taken some time reading your advice and opinions at the time of the invasion of iraq and yes, I wonder who was worth listening to.. you're a professionnal in french-bashing, but how valuable is the information are you bringing to us? How about a post-evaluation of the ideas you supported?

[KettleWhistle]

We don't hate the French, we hate the French arrogance and fairwheather friendliness. Nobody was trying to force the French Amry into Iraq. If France was against it, they could've abstained from voting, and not send the soldiers in. Instead they engaged in dirtiest anti-American politics. As for the Jewish perspective, they have been anti-Israel for decades. I don't know where you come up with all this Americans hate the French nonsense, but your govenment, and its citizens need to look into a mirror to see the cause of these problems.

But Europeans do not hate the uS the same way you hate Europe, because Europeans have the intelligence to make the division between the US-government and the US-society in general. Moore, most musicians, the entire intellectual elite of the US oposed Bush in much stronger terms than Europe ever did, they know the democracy in the US is at stake if the Bush-regime stays in power. perhaps Bush can learn some tricks from his Saoudi friends how to silence this opposition, he already mentioned the possibility of postponing the elections.

In case you didn't know that, Moore is a liar. Musicians are not "the intellectual elite;" they are entertainers. They understand as much about foreign policy and politics as the clown from McDonald's, if not less. And the democracy in the U.S. in not at stake. We always had it and always will, so no need to get paranoid about us. You should be more concerned with your govenment's relationships with the real oppressive regimes, like those in China and Cuba. But then it's not like the French govenment ever had any problems with supporting tyrants. Didn't Chirac use to reffer to Saddam as his "dear friend?”

[takeo]

We don't hate the French, we hate the French arrogance and fairwheather friendliness.

noone can beat the US when it comes to arrogance and hypocrisy, not even France.

Nobody was trying to force the French Amry into Iraq. If France was against it, they could've abstained from voting, and not send the soldiers in.

if we're against it, we vote against it, that's obvious and not hypocrite, you vetoed different unsc-resolutions as well.

Instead they engaged in dirtiest anti-American politics.

nonsense, we just expressed our opposition to the war in Iraq, nothing more, nothing less, you started to take it personal and engage in france-bashing ("old Europe", etc.)

As for the Jewish perspective, they have been anti-Israel for decades.

france sold nukes to Israel, relations got worse when Israel attacked its neighbours in 1967.

I don't know where you come up with all this Americans hate the French nonsense, but your govenment, and its citizens need to look into a mirror to see the cause of these problems.

We look in the mirror and we didn't see anything that gives you a reason to hate France.

In case you didn't know that, Moore is a liar.

so he's in good company, Bush, Cheney, etc. are equally exposed notorious liers.

Musicians are not "the intellectual elite;" they are entertainers.

I meant musicians AND the (largest part of) the intellectual elite.

They understand as much about foreign policy and politics as the clown from McDonald's, if not less.

but still more than the average American, if not how on earth could still 40% of Americans vote for Bush?

And the democracy in the U.S. in not at stake. We always had it and always will, so no need to get paranoid about us.

but never before since the civil war has the us been so antagonised, not even during the Vietnam-war.

You should be more concerned with your govenment's relationships with the real oppressive regimes, like those in China and Cuba.

you mean China your largest trading partner? oh and of course Saoudi Arabia, Pakistan, Guatemala, etc. are perfect democracies, so no need for you to be concerned...

But then it's not like the French govenment ever had any problems with supporting tyrants. Didn't Chirac use to reffer to Saddam as his "dear friend?”

during the same time Rumsfeld drunk tea and coffee with Saddam, he shook hands and the expression in the picture expresses almost adoration and eternal friendship...
But this is still nothing compared to the very close friendship and business ties between the Saoudi royal family and the Bush family... it doesn't look like the Bush-family brought up the issue of human rights when enjoying candlelight supper in the Bush' familyranch or the Saoudi residence...

[Mediocrates]

Chirac on CSPAN 2 right now. Check it out. Speech July 8: Le Chambon-Sur-Lignon.

http://www.yad-vashem.org.il/visitin...s/chambon.html

http://www.chambon.org/