-----Original Message-----
From: Kyryahn@aol.com [mailto:Kyryahn@aol.com]
Sent: Saturday, September 06, 2003 6:41 AM
To: royalewithcheese@pavefrance.com
Subject: your wonderful site

LOL in your dreams, never read so much garbage on a single website. Lies, racist comments, pro Bush/Blair propaganda...you should be ashamed to use your primary school computer to do such things. But don't worry, we all did stupid things when we were kids.
Do like Bush, beg me and kiss my a$$, maybe you'll be forgiven :)

Oh yeah....

So now bashing the stupid frogs is RACIST? Give me a break, and take your weak arguments back to that never-was piece of crap country France, ok?

I don't think Carine or anyone has posted a thing about Bush (pro or anti) in two months. Ok, Mr Alphabet poster has, but I really don't see how he can be considered pro Bush. Perhaps we should thank the emailer as the words "drunken cowboy" are usually incorporated in those phrases.

Well, it is about time for the standard rant, isn't it? Turn your Radical handbooks to page 472...

Pathetic.

I've said worse. Not about Bush though.

Who cares what a Vichy Degenerate says anyway?

Hey France must have done the right thing. Hamas is listed as a terrorist org. by the EU . Better late then never.

Eh... JM,

We have now two things on which we can agree !!!
1) Would be nice to have a beer together
2) Hamas is listed as a terrorist org. by the EU . Better late then never

Things are going better and better...

So now bashing the stupid frogs is RACIST?

Oh yeah Kevin, it is :
You can target Frogs, Unitedstatishes, Brits, Zulus or whatever you like, when you insult people for where or from who they are born IT IS RACISM.

Take a break and think rather about what people DO... with that, there is enough matter of bashing for all your life on both sides of Atlantic.

...when you insult people for where or from who [sic] they are born IT IS RACISM.

Posted by Pierre at September 6, 2003 04:51 PM

Pierre,

You're neither very astute, nor for all the time you've spent at Pave, very attentive.

Racism is the belief in superiority or inferiority based on race or the concomitant prejudices of such a belief. Don't take my word for it, go look it up here.

The operative word here is "race". Just what race do you see being singled out on this site? Or are the distinctions between race and nationality and state and government and politics and policy all lost on you? Or is it just more convenient for you to lump all opinions at variance with your own as racist?

In this new century:
-We have fundamentalists muslim [sic] who are sure to have the ONLY true belief and try to enforce it everywhere by any means.
-We have US hardliners who are sure about having the best economic and polytic [sic] system and try to enforce it everywhere by hum.. [sic] ALMOST any means.

Posted by: Pierre on August 29, 2003 06:48 AM

Of course, when you make your broad wild claims, you conveniently exculpate yourself from your own special concept of "racism".

Trolls, such as yourself, like to decorate their jejune comments with scare words like "racism", "fascism", "genocide", et al. without much bother about the real meanings of these words. It's a simplistic shorthand signaling the good trolls are against everything bad -- and, as concerns the mission of this site, they show up here and square their opinions nicely with entente between France and the likes of Messrs. Saddam, Arafat, Mugabe, Kim, et al.

Come back for grown-up debate when you have some command over basic definitions and concepts. Till then, spare us your delicacy and sanctimony.

Regards,
DGB

I just came upon an item of interest at little green footballs.
An Italian lady named Oriana Fallaci, 73, called the Muslim culture rotten and backward and said "the sons of Allah are multiplying like rats". She is now under indictment for inciting racial hatred in Paris.

If successful, the case against her will set a precedent in French law. Up to now, only the public prosecutor or official anti-racist associations have been allowed to bring cases alleging incitement to racial hatred. Ms Fallaci's accusers are 11 young Muslim men from the Lyons suburbs.

The contention that Muslims breed like rats must be proved in a court of law. Seems to me just a sample of the many muslim rape gang exploits will be enough. But the disturbing thing is these Muslim youth seem to be getting preferential treatment by allowing them to bring a case under a law that is the provence of government prosecutors. France is allowing its system to be highjacked by Islamic "Thought Police" much as it is done in Pakistan or Saudi Arabia. Could this be a step toward Sharia in France? Sure looks like it to me.

This isn't just any lady. She is a "real" Liberal. Not the wishie washie, "I'm against anything the establishment does" kind of Liberal either.

She [is]sic renowned as one of the few western women to have interviewed the Ayatollah Khomneini, the late Iranian revolutionary leader, and for ripping off her chador - the all-covering garment she was obliged to wear - at the end of the encounter.

Source

Remember:
>If an American (or anyone else)rips on France = RACISIM
>If a Frenchman rips on an American (or anyone else)= FREE SPEECH, TELLING THE TRUTH, ECT.
I sort of sense a double standard here.

France in about four years...

http://www.apple.com/trailers/miramax/equilibrium.html

Hmmmmmm... We keep Oriana Fallaci and France keeps Roman Polanski and Johnny Depp. Fair trade! :D

Does anybody recognize the name Bernard Henri Levy? French hebrew author? Charlie Rose interviewed him yesterday about his theories on why Daniel Pearl was killed. He thinks Daniel Pearl discovered Al Queda or some other Islamic NGO purchasing Nuclear intel from Pakistan.
Today NPR interviewed Bernard Henri Levy. The commentator introduced him as being the author of the number one bestselling book in France today. Is this true?

"Today NPR interviewed Bernard Henri Levy. The commentator introduced him as being the author of the number one bestselling book in France today. Is this true?"
Don't know if it s number one ,but it's a bestseller.

I think we should keep Oriana Fallaci and Bernard Levy and France can have Roman Polanski and Johnny Depp. Thats Fair! :D

Sir DG Bennett scolded me :
You're neither very astute, nor for all the time you've spent at Pave, very attentive.
WEW ! Nice professorial take off ! I did not get such soundy riffle in my ears since 30 years. In fact I got way harder at school where I was even worth pupil than what I am now in pavefrance academy.

Thanks for this very usefull link (http://dictionary.reference.com/). If we keep stuck on this definition, OK you are right, although the concept of human race is quite fuzzy and rather a social construction than any biological reality.

Now, a good link worth another. Try this one:

There are two main definitions of racism today. One of them states that racism is dicrimination based on alleged race, the other - newer - one states that racism has started to include also discrimination based on religion or culture.

If we accept this second definition of racism, may be I am not that wrong ?.
The mental process making a global prejudgement of people for their country is very similar to racism. even though a nation is targeted and not a (so called) race.

While you are on

rolls, such as yourself, like to decorate their jejune comments with scare words like "racism", "fascism", "genocide", et al
I did not use "fascism" or "genocide" so far. Depends on the topic. If there is an article about what happened to native Americans, may be I will use the word "genocide" in my commnt.

And you keep on

they show up here and square their opinions nicely with entente between France and the likes of Messrs. Saddam, Arafat, Mugabe, Kim, et al.

Funny, in your traditional dictator list we are supposed to be fan, you always forget guys like Pinochet, Lon Nol, Nguyen Van Thieu, Batista, Galtieri, et al.

Well, US has already her favorites and there is no heart big enough to fall in love for ALL dictators...

Your last salvo :

Come back for grown-up debate when you have some command over basic definitions and concepts. Till then, spare us your delicacy and sanctimony.

If you ask me to shut up until I have in head the complete content of the dictionary and make for all word definition the interpretation you like.. Sorry, you ask me too much ;)
Who except you would be granted talking under such drastic rules ?

However, Thanks for the "delicacy". I hope Carine has read that, 2 weeks ago, she taunted me for vulgarity... I have made HUGE progress then.

About "sanctimony"
You are never short of words but may be sometimes short of ideas ? If you cannot dismiss a post for its content, no problem, just pretend "You tell white but you feel black", It will always do the job quick and easy.

But what job and in what purpose ?

Thanks anyway for your post who drives to search and think.

Respectfully
Pierre

(My first post!) Sorry Pierre, but DG nailed it. Calling this site ‘racist’ without specific arguments is nothing but a mindless attempt to insult and silence debate. BTW, the French are not a different race. A different species maybe, the cheese eating surrender monkey (just kidding). Your defense of the troll's choice of words speaks volumes.

After all, if you can successfully smear a person or a site with whom you disagree as racist, their opinions and ideas can then be be dismissed without explanation…no need then for one to examine their own views or come up with logical arguments in support of their position. The French, from what I’ve seen, are especially guilty of using clichés and smears, rather than serious arguments to support their position. How else to explain the widely held belief among Frenchies that the US invaded Iraq in order to steal the oil? If the US is ‘racist’ and ‘imperialist’, then there is no need to deal with inconvenient facts such as why the US didn’t take possession of Kuwaiti oil fields in '91?...after all, we could have, and we did save their asses, but we didn’t. Why didn’t we invade the closer and more easily conquered Venezuela if it was all about the oil? How else to explain why such obvious points have escaped so many narrow French minds.

I don’t believe for a minute that the regular posters here are prejudging the entire country of France as you suggest (Carine is French, isn’t she?), only addressing the beliefs/opinions of what appears to be a sizeable majority of the French population

Pierre,

The short answer is no, the French aren't a race, just as Americans are not a race. So your not a victim of racism, your not victims of any kind. Whatever has or is happening to France or the French is a product of France's on making, the US has done nothing economically or politically to France or the French. Sheesh. It's as though you folks see American boogeymen everywhere, get a damn grip. Self-absorption and an all-consuming obssession with Americans is paranoid. And really what the French are, are the butts of a collective American jokes and scorn of course, that's all.

And Kyryahn sounds like a bitter misunderstood self-esteem deficient bozo. I wouldn't waste too much of my finite lifespan on him, her, er it.

That should be "you're not victims" not "your." I gotta start proofreading this stuff.

M. Pierre,

The Wikipedia is a marvelous little site but not authoritative. Anyone can post to topics and anyone can edit. It is as frequently wrong, poorly sourced, and fanciful as it is right. The article you sourced is particularly weak and internally inconsistent.

Agreeing on terms is the first order of business in any debate. Racism by definition is confined to race. When lumping race, religion, and culture together ("discrimination based on religion or culture") the more general term for your complaint is bigotry. But of course bigotry doesn't have the same nasty edge associated with racism.

The term "human race" is a synecdoche for "humanity", where the appositive "race", a particular attribute, stands for the whole. Human race is a rhetorical term and not a taxonomic term, as you seem to think.

It's not clear how closely you read your link to Mr. Ian F. Haney Lopez, but his science is curious and his conclusion is curiouser still:

[R]eferents of terms like Black, White, Asian, and Latino are social groups, not genetically distinct branches of humankind.

So if this is the position you subscribe to, M. Pierre, then instead of swinging around accusations of "racism", you should be accusing Pave of "socialism". Yet your earlier post is clearly at odds with Mr. Lopez's supposition:

...when you insult people for where or from who they are born IT IS RACISM.
Posted by Pierre at September 6, 2003 04:51 PM

You, at least, seem to believe race is still a viable concept. Perhaps you can see why we're all a little confused about exactly what your position is.

Again, you are not a careful reader, no one is accusing you specifically of using the terms "fascism" or "genocide". The reference to yourself was a subordinate apposition to the remark that sloppy-thinking trolls have a pronounced tendency for throwing such words around without any clear understanding of either their meanings or historical instances. Regarding the single term racism, you are a case in point.

M. Pierre, if you were familiar with the commentary here at Pave, you would know that trolls are regular apologists for the French entente with the despots I named. The despots you named are not topical in the Pave threads.

If you ask me to shut up until I have in head the complete content of the dictionary and make for all word definition the interpretation you like..
Posted by Pierre at September 6, 2003 04:51 PM

Rather dramatic, M. Pierre. No one is suggesting you "shut up", but if you are here for serious debate, get serious. Simple as that.

Lastly, I couldn't make head or tail of your opening and closing remarks. If you wish to insult me, fair's fair, but here's a clue: Make sure your insult is intelligible. Oh, and some wit is appreciated.

Regards,
DGB

The Frogs aren't a human race. They are degenerate subhumans!

Darrel:
Not only could they " successfully smear a person or a site with whom you disagree as racist, their opinions and ideas can then be be dismissed without explanation "
but under French hate speech laws they can prosecute you.

If you think your safe from the Muslim Thought Police in Paris check what is happening to Oriana Fallaci.

Aside from the debate on whether bashing France is racisim, we also must ask "What did France do for these racists views to develop, if they are indeed racist?" Clearly there is the expectation for Americans to ask "Why do they hate us?" and this applies equally as well to France. Perhaps the usually arguments apply: current French governmental policies, zionist influence in Paris, ELF-Total-Fina petroleum influence in government, expansionist and imperialist French foreign policy, etc.

Parts of America were once part of the French colonial empire and it is quite natural and understandable for former oppressed colonies to bear a grudge against their colonial masters. I read in a post here about what a wonderful new airport the French built in Cambodia as an atonement for past colonial sins. Perhaps a similar reparations package is called for to placate American feelings. I think the French building one of those marvelous mass transit systems in every large city (MSAs with populations over 500,000) in the former colonial terroritory in the Americas would do much good in heeling the bad feelings. As many in France eagerly like to point out, France is a much older country than the United States, much cultrued and sophisticate. Surely such a people would be big enough to embark on such a task.

Think of all the added benefits of such a plan. Americans would be less likely to drive their cars and those SUVs with this alternative transportation and would bring the whole country in complience with the Kyoto protocols. Further more, with the progressive socialist nature currently present in France, the French people would not be adverse to an increase in tax levies to pay for such an endeavor.

Nothing remotely like the overtly poisonous anti-French propaganda of the Murdoch media could be found anywhere in Paris.

Adam Gopnik, the New Yorker.

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030901fa_fact1

Hello Damian,

The more important first

Lastly, I couldn't make head or tail of your opening and closing remarks. If you wish to insult me, fair's fair, but here's a clue: Make sure your insult is intelligible. Oh, and some wit is appreciated.

There is by times some irony but no insult to you or anyone else intended in my posts.
If some parts look confusing, it might be simply because English is not my native language.

the more general term for your complaint is bigotry. But of course bigotry doesn't have the same nasty edge associated with racism.

despite little "gems" like this one

The Frogs aren't a human race. They are degenerate subhumans!
Posted by Piere Laval at September 7, 2003 03:55 PM mailto:coward@Frogs.com

I know that the majority of persons running this blog or commenting here are not racists in their heart and mind and on the contrary will rather reject racist claims or goals. But, like it or not, some argumentations and logics used here are SIMILAR at its smaller scale to the logic applied by people promoting racism.

I did not think about bigotry bigoterie exists in French and is reserved on religious matters. Un bigot is someone making big "show" at any occasion of his religious devotion.

The English word bigotry and its meaning (thanks to http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=bigot) fits certainly better than racism the Kevin's affirmation:

So now bashing the stupid frogs is RACIST? Give me a break, and take your weak arguments back to that never-was piece of crap country France, ok?

Then OK on the word bigotry !
However, here is a perfid suggestion :
Make this little experience : replace frogs wit jews, France with Israel and post the result somewhere in LGF (http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/). You should get a nice reception, if they "shake" you too hard, just tell them the idea came from a French... (DON'T DO THAT USING YOUR CORPORATE ISP !!! BUT FROM THE CYBERCAFE ROUND THE CORNER ;D)

Or, if you prefere a more quiet experiment, think about how you would react with the same after the operation frogs->cowboys and France->USA.

Don't worry about

Rather dramatic, M. Pierre. No one is suggesting you "shut up", but if you are here for serious debate, get serious. Simple as that.

It was almost "auto-irony" derivated from a movie title (Ce n'est pas parce qu'on a rien à dire qu'il faut fermer sa gueule). I will tell it another way :
"Having nothing intelligent to say is not a reason to shut up"

...trolls are regular apologists for the French entente with the despots I named. The despots you named are not topical in the Pave threads.

Well, same answer as Marc's for one Carine's recent thread

Remember we're talking about France here. Responding to a post about France's torture instructors in Argentina by an article about the CIA, Pinochet and Chile, or Guantanamo Bay is irrelevant.

We have to sort where is the problem. If your purpose is to tell "France does always and only wrong" all contradiction is by nature irrelevant. If the problem is entente with despots, references to any despots and supported OR by any countries (France and USA are THE BIG specialists in this domain) might bring some clue.

NB : USSR was the master in this domain but less controversial as it was itself a despotic system.

Cordiales salutations
Pierre

pierre
I never saw this Piere Laval post anything in here before. It seems disingenuous to use a flyby grump as a representative for our regular committed Frog bashers.

I like experiments so I will try Posting a sentence or two transposing French with the Jews at LGF. Lets see what happens.

First I will need a suitably pernitious France bash. hmmmm...

I'm looking at Kevin from the first post. Nope he's not someone I recognize either.

Pierre how about you find the sentence for me to post? It has to be a regular, not some kid out to get a rise by saying the outrageous.

If the problem is entente with despots, references to any despots and supported OR by any countries (France and USA are THE BIG specialists in this domain) might bring some clue.

Pierre,

I just need to check one small thing: could you please give me the name of this blog? What do you read exactly?

Thanks in advance ;)

M. Pierre,

In my comments, here and elsewhere, I speak only for myself.

Usually the Pave threads are pretty well mannered (pay a visit to Indymedia for examples of ill-mannered posts), but Pave is not populated by saints. It is regrettable when discussion simply trails off into invective and spew.

However, exchanging insults as long as they are germane to the topic, and are intended to goad the opposition to present better arguments, well, M. Pierre, it keeps things lively. Name-calling fits neither of the above criteria.

Moving on, the purposes of the Pave site are given here. My own purposes for posting here are two: (1) to take the measure of contemporary French thinking and attitudes, (2) and to beat down oppositional arguments. My complaints with France are specific and have to do with fundamental differences in the way Americans, by and large, and the French, by and large, conceive of liberty, freedom, and justice and manage Realpolitik and principles.

Now, regarding what is and is not relevant. It is an old trick for the opposition to refute an argument that is not advanced, scilicet:

As the median age of the Pave community is around 25 or so, and since all the despots you listed are dead, it's a good bet there are no apologists for them here. However, Pave has posted topics featuring the despots I listed and real trolls have tendered defenses of said despots, making them all topically relevant to the site.

This site does not pretend to uncritically support all American policies or Realpolitik, what it does do is expose French uncritical complaints and hypocrisy about American power, policy, and culture.

Finally, as for your little "experience" [sic], there seems to be something fundamental about forensic method that escapes you. Bad manners are not being defended here. Pave is not interested in establishing the equivalence of name-calling. If your point is that bad-manners are, well, bad, consider your point taken. French ideas, attitudes, and politics are being debated on this site. Switching names as you suggest, makes no sense at all in a debate.

Perhaps now we can begin arguing.

Regards,
DGB

BTW, the anonymous yob, who has signed his spew as "Piere [sic] Laval" and appropriately gives his e-mail address as "coward@Frogs.com", makes an odd choice of pseudonym to defame the French. A prime minister during the Third Republic, Pierre Laval curried favor with the Nazis after the defeat of France and was executed as a collaborationist in 1945 to the great relief of his former Vichy colleagues. To use such a discredited figure to mouth abuse would seem to banjax that very intent.

Pierre,
I just need to check one small thing: could you please give me the name of this blog? What do you read exactly?
Thanks in advance ;)

The name of this blog ? Easy, it is just writen in the URL edit box on top of my screen. Wait...

w-w-w... pa-ve-fran-ce... Aaah que ben ouai ! Bon-Dieu ! mais c'est bien sûr!!

OK Carine, I am VERY INTELLIGENT and I have recieved your message 5/5 !!

So, to go in the direction of the wind here, I should join you kicking, bashing my own country, my relatives, my friends, my colleagues, neighbours and... tax perceptor ;D...

Sorry Carine, I don't wish to do so. Even to please you, even to get at least the recipe of the cosmopolitan Martini ;)

It would be useless anyway, you have enough people here doing that job.

The only thing I can bring here, as long as you accept it, is some contradiction, some other point of view.
In return I get answers: A few of them are just OK to be forgoten ASAP, others are funny, others are interesting , learn me something and drive me to think farther.

Isn't it the value in open debate ?

Good night for now, my customers need better than a zombie tomorrow.

Pierre

OK Carine, I am VERY INTELLIGENT and I have recieved your message 5/5 !!

Hmm, nice surprise ;)

So, to go in the direction of the wind here, I should join you kicking, bashing my own country, my relatives, my friends, my colleagues, neighbours and... tax perceptor ;D...

Nooooo! I never said that. Ha... you didn't "receive my message 5/5", I'm sorry.
In addition, you seem to imply I think everything or everyone must be criticized in France.
Let's try one last time: We are here to talk about France. Is that clearer?

Even to please you, even to get at least the recipe of the cosmopolitan Martini ;)

That's too bad, you're missing something, because Cosmopolitans are delicious...

The only thing I can bring here, as long as you accept it, is some contradiction, some other point of view.

As long as you're bringing real "contradiction" as you say (though I'm not sure to understand what you mean by "contradiction") relevant to the post you're arguing about.
I think Damian explained all of this quite clearly anyway.

Isn't it the value in open debate ?

That's what we've been longing for all the way. Debate. Not name-calling, not finger-pointing. Serious debate. Serious debate about France.

Carine told :
That's what we've been longing for all the way. Debate. Not name-calling, not finger-pointing. Serious debate. Serious debate about France.
and later :

"Hmm, nice surprise ;)"
"Nooooo! I never said that. Ha... you didn't "receive my message 5/5", I'm sorry. "

Your ironic answers don't contribute to any serious debate and only intent to lower artificially the person to who you talk.

I wonder how it's possible to have serious debate with so many limitations for this debate.
France is a country of the World and his actions must be appreciated in a global, worldwide context.
The Franco-French bashing or analysis, removing what the other countries do or think won't lead to neither very clever debate, nor interesting conclusions.

Your ironic answers don't contribute to any serious debate and only intent to lower artificially the person to who you talk.

No Marc, I'm kidding with Pierre, something I'm certainly not willing to do with you.

Apparently, you still didn't get the message, Marc.

France is a country of the World and his actions must be appreciated in a global, worldwide context.

Oh really? Well, I've got something for you. Check this. And stop whining here, you have better things to do, don't you?

Weeeelllllll

I see that I've stirred up quite a hornet's nest of the unintelligent! Let me see if I get this straight....YOU (stupid frogs) can bash the United States, call us all kinds of nasty things, compare us with Hitler, refuse to help us in any way, THEN call us RACIST when we speak up against your vitriolic trash....WE, on the other hand, DEFEND ourselves against terrorists, destroy countries that harbor terrorists, NOTICE that the FRENCH government is really cozy with dictators like Mugabe in Africa that kill for RACIST reasons, and get a bit angry with the French and the Germans....but it's only AMERICANS that are RACIST? Give me a break. If AMERICANS are RACIST, then SO ARE THE FRENCH!!!!!

M. Levis,

I wonder how it's possible to have serious debate with so many limitations for this debate.
Posted by Marc Levis at September 9, 2003 03:36 AM

Serious debates tend to be narrow. They focus on particular issues and admit only the facts and evidence relevant to the issues under discussion.

Every court of law subscribes to limitations on what is permissible or germane to the case in the docket.

France is a country of the World and his [sic] actions must be appreciated in a global, worldwide context.
Posted by Marc Levis at September 9, 2003 03:36 AM

Now, M. Levis, you might find a more sympathetic audience were you to exercise a sense of proportion. You frequently swan in here to make ripping denunciations of America, yet you are lavishly uncritical in your defenses of France, writing about a geo-powerful France that hasn't existed since the Emperor Napoleon mustered her sons for his ill-considered march on Moscow.

In the worldwide context where you invite us to take France’s measure, she appears to be a middling player:

• In GDP (6), she ranks behind China (2), Japan (3), India (4), and Germany (5), et al.;
• In GDP growth (3.1%) she lags such countries as Poland (4.8%), Bangladesh (5.3%), Turkey (6%), China (8%), et al.;
• In per capita GDP (19) she is behind the likes of Luxembourg (1), Bermuda (3), Norway (7), Denmark (10), Belgium (12), and Iceland (16), et al.;
• On the UN Human Development Index , measuring life expectancy, educational attainment, and adjusted real income, she ranks (13) below Australia (2), Netherlands (8), and Finland (10), et al.;
• In competitiveness, where the United States (1) tops the rankings, France (30) is bested by Chile (20), Estonia (26), Solvenia (28), and Hungary (29), et al.;
• And if the Internet can be construed as a rough benchmark of an informed people, among high-income OECD nations, France (26.4/100) lags behind Iceland (59.9/100), Sweden (51.6/100), Canada (46.7/100), Finland (43/100), Denmark (42.9/100), and Luxembourg (36/100), et al.

Needless to say France trails the United States in all these categories.

One measure by which France (1) has led the world – and for three years running – far far ahead of the United States, is at the top of the Tax Misery Index .

France also beats out the United States in unemployment (8.7%), also ahead of Germany (7.3%), Ireland (3.9%), Mexico (2.5%), and Switzerland (1.9%).

So you can see that Pave is appreciative of France in her global context, where she is something much less than your own high opinion – and hers – warrant.

Now go do some homework and spare us your vapors.

Regards,
DGB

Using your sources, a different reading :
In GDP (6): France makes better than United Kingdom (7), Brazil (9), Russia (10), Spain (15), Australia (17)

In GDP Groth(3%): France beats United Kingdom (3%), Japan (1.7%)...

In per Capita GDP (19) ,: France beats Germany (21),Australia (22), United Kingdom (26)...

UN Human Development Index (13) : France is over Germany (17) , United Kingdom (14) , Italy (20),Spain (21)

So , as we can see, The French economy is not so ill....

Amongst almost 200 countries, France ranks globally 5 or 6 according to differents rankings systems.
This ranking is too high to call France a "middling player".

M. Levis,

Unlike yourself I have sourced my claims. I'm sure one of those mysterious global ranking systems you haven't bothered to list is the Marc Levis "France is Swell" Index.

The point here isn't what countries France outranks, the point here is the countries that are outranking France. Whatever countries France beats out does not change her consistent middling rankings in the indices I have cited. The exceptions being her top rankings in oppressive taxation and unemployment.

But of course, this site is not quarreling with the likes of the UK, Spain, Italy, Australia, Japan, et al., none of whom have explicitly set themselves up as America's political rival.

Pave's complaint is with the French presumption of geopolitical opposition to the United States and the pointless mischief that presumption incites.

France, in the persons of Messrs. Chirac and Villepin, has announced itself as the world's "counterweight" to the United States. Some "counterweight". The French government has neither the muscle, the capital, the influence, the vision, nor, most importantly, the will to be such a "counterweight". Its middling rankings bear this out.

Coming in 5th or 6th in your mysterious global rankings puts France exactly four or five positions beyond its aspirations as a "counterweight".

Save the hauteur for your drinking buddies.

Regards,
DGB

But of course, this site is not quarreling with the likes of the UK, Spain, Italy, Australia, Japan, et al., none of whom have explicitly set themselves up as America's political rival.

France can't be a political rival at the level of the US because there are none. US is the only superpower. Shall we conclude that you consider UK as well as a middling player (the figures between UK and France are very close)?

Pave's complaint is with the French presumption of geopolitical opposition to the United States and the pointless mischief that presumption incites.

Well, geopolitical opposition was just made about the iraqui question, ie on the way to fight the war on terrorism, which concerns us almost as much as you (do I need to remind you that we were victim of islamists not that long ago). It might lack the vision as you put it, but this opinion was not just ours and as little as we are, we had the right to consider that a war in iraq would do us more harm than good. Or at least the way it was going to be done.
Most of us were not convinced by the motivation behind it. Nobody believed (and I know it's the other way round in the US) that Iraq had a link with 9/11 (Afghanistan, Saud Arabia, Pakistan ok but Iraq?). Nobody was believing that Iraq was an imminent threat to the world.
I can't find it but I would be interested to see the main speech W did before the war to justify it. Just to acknowledge his "vision".

"Well, geopolitical opposition was just made about the iraqui question"

Not true. France has been positioning itself as a counterweight to US policies for decades, especially during its ‘triangulation’ with the repressive Soviet Union during the cold war in which France pulled its military out of NATO. And who could forget the dishonorable French weasel refusal to allow our jets flyover rights when we bombed Libya in response to a terrorist attack? Chirac has stated that having ‘one dominant power’ is not acceptable. Issues don’t matter, France wants the US to have a euro counterweight on ALL matters, and demonizing the US while threatening those who support us is part of the French strategy.

The buildup of an EU military is never discussed in terms of fighting alongside the US, but as a ‘counterweight’ to US ‘hyper-power’, so let’s cut the dishonest talk about how France only opposes the US in Iraq.

Re Iraq "Most of us were not convinced by the motivation behind it"

Well then, what were the motivations behind US actions in Iraq in your opinion? Were we there to ‘steal Iraqi oil’ as so many ignorant Frenchman believe? Or did Pres Bush and PM Blair take such big political risks going into Iraq because Bush is an arrogant cowboy who simply wanted 'to show the world who’s boss’? Really, I would like to hear more French opinions on our motivations…I could use a good laugh

I’m amused by those like Papa French who say Iraq was not an ‘imminent threat’. On what basis could anyone possibly make such a claim? The entire world, including France and H. Blix, acknowledges that Saddam had an abundance of WMDs in 1998 when he kicked out inspectors. He never showed evidence that he destroyed those KNOWN WMDs. Is it your position that Saddam suddenly turned over a new leaf and destroyed these known WMD's (without evidence)?

Given that Saddam is a mass murdering lying sociopath with a history of WMD production and a record of using them, could we reasonably afford to risk giving Saddam more time to pass off Vx gas or other WMD's financed by the 'Oil for Food' program to terrorist organizations who desperately want to kill us?

12 yrs of second chances without enforcement (French-style) only encourages the likes of Saddam and other would-be tyrants. And thanks to the UN, Saddam had plenty of money from the ‘Oil for Food’ program to finance weapons programs, and divert $$ to his numerous palaces which were filled to the brim with weapons, cash,and porn. The dupes at the UN either didn’t care about food money for children being diverted away, or were clueless chumps as to the massive amount of cash which was siphoned away from the UN program directly to Saddam’s personal use

French weasels did not simply disagree with the US on this important matter of national (and world security), they actively traveled across to globe to rally opinion against us, the result of which would have left Saddam and sons in power. Did the French put up such active diplomatic resistance when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan? Have they put any diplomatic pressure to bear on Mugabe? yeah, that's what I thought...it's the Americains who are le probleme.

Papafrench, AKA Patrice Klajman,

And I was unaware we were trying to sell a nuclear reactor to iraq 5 years ago. Give me your source.
Posted by papa french at September 10, 2003 05:11 PM

M. Mayeau has made a claim. Asking for his sources is a fair request.

Khidhir Hamza, a former director of Iraq's nuclear-weapons program, describes the basis for France’s doggéd support of Saddam Hussein right up to – and apparently following – his overthrow. The article can be found here.

You seem to have entered into a spitting contest with M. Mayeau. The comments don’t seem to be going anywhere. Exactly what is the point you are trying to establish? Also, while you are very keen for M. Mayeau to source his claims, I notice you provide none for your own. Why is that?

Regarding your tepid responses on behalf of Marc Levis:

(A) France is a middling player who aspires to a global eminence clearly beyond her competence. The UK enjoys a world preeminence that France does not because of its shared values and association with America AND because the UK doesn't pretend to punch above its weight. Now what is your point?

(B) Mr. Bush gave several speeches in the long run-up to the liberation of Iraq. Too lazy to look for them, you smugly advertise your ignorance. Start here. Now go do your own homework.

M. Mayeau,

My complaints with Mr. Clinton’s throwaway apology for slavery are many: It was a sop calculated for political advantage; Mr. Clinton suggested an ongoing American animus to Africa, his administration excluded; the speech itself was trite and condescending, neatly overlooking the complicity of Africa in the enslavement of her sons and daughters – nor did Mr. Clinton’s moral disgust extend to the contemporary practice of slavery in the Sudan.

Mr. Clinton is hardly the person to improve Mr. Lincoln’s eloquence on the evils of American slavery.

Mr. Clinton’s whistle-stop speech in Rwanda was just that. During his 1998 11-day African tour he managed to spare Rwanda exactly one half hour of his time to shed his ephemeral tears on the tarmac at Kigali Airport. Pointing out the obvious Mr. Clinton admitted: “We did not act quickly enough after the killing began. We should not have allowed the refugee camps to become safe haves for the killers. We did not immediately call these crimes by their rightful name: genocide. We cannot change the past.” This insipid speech in its entirety can be found here. His administration could have stopped the slaughter had it declared its intention to do so instead of dithering to calculate the political advantages or temporizing about the term “genocide”. The Atlantic Monthly published a chilling indictment by Samantha Power, Bystanders to Genocide, of the Clinton administration’s inaction on Rwanda.

Suddenly politicians are wild for apologies. They’ll apologize for anything they are not directly responsible for to any sizable voting constituency. And apologies are the camel’s nose for reparations.

Whereas the internment of American citizens of Japanese descent was unjust, it was not unreasonable given its historical moment. Neither are all just actions are reasonable. Reparations paid to individuals proportionate to the harm done them is both just and reasonable.

Excuse my cynicism about the French “compensation” discussed in this thread. After 15,000 heat deaths, the current French government has no credibility with voters 65 years and older. Oddly enough, the beneficiaries of the announced “compensation” belong to this very constituency.

Regards,
DGB