The heterogeneous "left" in France takes 20 of 22 mainland regions.
The co-prince of Andorra looks pretty glum. (Hat Tip: Carine) Do Andorrans get a half vote in French elections?
America has been following these elections with, well, not at all. The view from America, all across its variegated political spectrum, has been a prodigious inattention to the Jack pack, socialists, Lepenists*, the t'emmerde Communists, and other sundry parties shouting or crying their way into office.
* The party of penises? They should consider shacking up with this party.
Reform or no reform?:
"Stopping the reforms would be suicidal for our country," insisted government spokesman Jean-Francois Cope. He lost a high-profile battle to unseat the left in the Paris region.
"The French are very, very hard to reform. The moment you touch upon their individual interests, there's a phenomenon of violent rejection — as we just witnessed," [Axel Poniatowski, a lawmaker in Chirac's party,] said in an interview.
"The French want reforms, but fair reforms," added Socialist Segolene Royal, who delivered a blow to the prime minister by leading the left to victory in the western Poitou-Charentes region that used to be Raffarin's fiefdom. Chirac "must profoundly change his policies," she said.
[Emphasis added. Even the AP acknowledges Republican feudalism.]
If you're the betting sort, no reform is chalk.
Better France fractured than France whole. A messy internecine government battling and resisting domestic reform will have less time to indulge Jack's diplomatic pranking.
If Jack wants Mr. Kerry for his new cabinet, he should be available after the second week of November. Let us know. Glad to oblige.
UPDATE 03.30.04: JACK SLACK WITH SACK
Jack's not one to discard his political buddy and PM, Jean-Pierre Raffarin...especially when he can be used as a bouclier humain to stymie Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy's presidential ambitions. Communist Party leader Marie-George Buffet called Chirac's decision "shocking." Dear girl, there's gambling in the Casbah too!
The Guardian, which is something like a better written NYT, has a useful feature that provides encapsulations of opinion from the main French papers.
Are we to understand that in the Land of the Free, none is to lose an election?
Well we should tell the Bush family (Georges senior now, junior in a few months), they'll be happy to know about it.
Oh well, I probably promised someone I wouldn't mention it again, but it's soooo much fun!
Steph,
I understand that sequitors are not the strong suite of the French, so let me put your febrifically disconnected mind at ease about the Land of the Free.
Here elections have been won and lost for over two and a quarter centuries, uninterrupted by civil war, world wars, economic depression, or Jane Fonda. That's longer than the spotty histories of all France's various republics combined. Unlike French parliamentary governance, America has no draws, no co-habitating governments. Somebody always wins. Somebody always loses. Except for Jimmy Carter, the losers have been for the most part gracious.
Your cartoon link is, like much wildly distorted third-rate political cartooning with the light touch of a wrecking ball but no swing, very nice. Ho-hum.
Now, let's get back on topic. Please provide Pave some competent on-the-ground commentary -- excuse the presumption that you hail from the land of Robespierre and Asterix -- on the French elections. I kid not when I say that the recent French elections have stirred less than zero interest in the American press.
Regards,
DGB
So if Chirac suicides up rather then face a life without Gerhard or possibly even - gosh Jailtime - who would step into his shoes till the next election? Does Jack have a Socialist VP?
There's something I never thought about. Have the French ever had an assassination of the head of Governement? I mean, besides the ones that featured townsfolk with torch and pitchfork, and a rewording of the constitution.
Good article here, by a frog no less.
I like this line: “I can no longer tolerate catcalls (by Muslims) when the Marseillaise is played during games at the Stadium of France”.
There are a few things said about the “West” as well.
Would an article like this ever be printed in a newspaper(mainstream) in France?
Will Jacques Verges represent the "other" Jacques when he is (run)out of office?
I seems like "point missing" is France's national sport.
Steph,
If you could provide one fact or argument that went deeper than "Bush is a Moron" and "Bush stole Florida" your cartoons would have more bite.
Just to give you an idea of what I am talking about, you could provide an instance of Bush doing something stupid, and explain why you think it was stupid. We could talk about that. Or you could explain to us HOW he stole the election. We could also have a discussion on that. Although it is tired ground.
I think that you don't want to have the discussion because you would rather cling to the beliefs that he stole the election, or that he is stupid, which bring you comfort, than to risk finding out that you have been lied to, and that you have been lying to yourself.
You guys accuse us of being overly patriotic, so I have an accusation for you: Your low self esteem keeps you from examinining your own beliefs, since deep down, you know they are a sham. I come to this conclusion because none of you froggies will ever take your arguments one step beyond the cheap shot phase. Zoomer did a couple of times, but reverted to cheap shot artist at step two. Why do you think that you guys have been doing such a poor job representing your "superior" ideas?
Damian :
"I say that the recent French elections have stirred less than zero interest in the American press."
And the point is ? (by the way : is the press still talking about Janet Jackson?)
Papertiger :
There are no VP in France (if you meant Vice-President, of course)
Thanks Steph for your link to globalcartoon ;D
As told Damian :
like much wildly distorted third-rate political cartooning
Exactly what I like and make me laugh ;DDD I had good time browsing this fantastic website.
Damian, don't tell us that please:
"I say that the recent French elections have stirred less than zero interest in the American press."
Really ??!! I can't believe it, like if we where not the more important people on the world pffftt... If you can't love us, OK, hate us but please NEVER NEVER ignore us... That's AWFULL!
So, Damian I want absolutely to thank you for the big interest you show about our election with your long post. You even show more concern about this election than too many French...
Today I can tell you who are the absolute world champions in the game called "I STRICTLY DON'T CARE ABOUT FRENCH REGIONAL ELECTION", They are not American but French, and their names are MM Chirac and Raffarin. Their message to the French people can be summarized by "Up your's, here we are, here wa stay, to hell you go, business as usual..."
Reality is always beyond imagination
Stéphane,
I see that it taxes your attention to read a complete post. The point you seek sits comfortably atop the very line you quote. Here, let me make it unbearably obvious for you:
Please provide Pave some competent on-the-ground commentary -- excuse the presumption that you hail from the land of Robespierre and Asterix -- on the French elections.
You see. The American press is not reporting on the French elections. You live in France. How nice to give you an opportunity to venture an opinion that might count for something in the discussion.
Too bad you don't appear up to the challenge.
DGB
Damian,
I too have a hard time shaking the illusion that if you think well of the French, and expect open and thoughtful conversation, they will respond in kind. Talk about a belief held without evidence.
But what you quoted about "reforms" does not reflect the voter's view. It is just how the politic staff wish to understand it.
Chirac was damned popular last year (especially due to his choice about Iraq war). Raffarin was also quite popular. The reform about retirement pension made big fuss in the politic micro world but however understood by most French. Everybody can understand that when we are short of fund we must encrease the income and lower the expenses.
They really went out line last summer at the end of the heat wave. Completely absent and suddenly coming back from holiday taunting some sub-responsible as the only fautive. I remember that for a simple power cut in New York, Bush made a speech in the TV within a few hours while we had to wait 10days to have some "news" of Mr Chirac...
Also their policy: the problem is not "too miuch left or too much right" but simply NOT EFFICIENT ENOUGH.
They decreased income taxes and transfered expenses on local level : result the local taxes rised higher and finally the global taxe rate is now higher. At the same time the state debt increased up to NEARLY AMERICAN LEVEL (4.1% in Fr, 5% in US) unemployment encrerase too. Research and education are under funded etc.
This negative result is the problem, not the "fear of reform"
Stéphane,
You might remark Pierre's post above. You see he lives in France and tells us something about what's going on there. Take a peek out your window and tell us what you see. You see, it's that easy.
Pierre,
Thanks for your comments. I've updated the post. The Communists are "shocked".
Americans when canvassed about the recent French elections are not a little surprised to learn you've done away with your nice king.
DGB
Damian :
What do I see ? I can see that people kicked the Conservatives asses last week-end, it was very pleasant ! Maybe Nicolas Sarkozy will be thrown out of the window, it would be wonderful. It's not a personnal feeling, it's just because he keeps giving a wrong solutions to problems.
For example : He banned prostitution instead of fighting against those who kidnap girls in Eastern Europe to bring them in Western Europe as "sex-slaves" (there are still poor women who have a real "job" as prostitutes).
He keeps saying that policemen are doing to much prevention and do not repress enough !
This was a point of vue (by stéphane)
Best regards
Damian :
Some people consider communist as an insult. Didn't know that (but I don't, I'll be pleased to be considered as a communist).
It's the same problem for some conservative in the good old U.S. of A, considering "french" as one of the most disgusting insult. An english reporter said that because France is seen as a woman (hmmm... :) ). He wanted to show that conservative (not in general of course) are macho men. I dunno...
What is your opinion about that ?
your little sissy !
Stephane,
Communists are thought of as the extreem wing of the Democrats , here in America.
I never thought France was female.
Like we always hear reference to Mother Russia. Germany is always das Vaterland in WW2 movies.
I think we imagine France as neuter.
Not that there is anything wrong with that;
Patrick Chapatte (the cartoonist) is Swiss, not French. And he IS funny (I guess you haven't enjoyed this one about Spain either). and I also guess you won't like Jeff Danziger. Relax, gentlemen!
I don't care much about the elections in Iowa or Alabama (be it gobernatorial or state legislature), and I'd actually think you are pushing the anti-France obsession a bit far if you were to care about regional governing bodies which, in effect, have little more power than counties do have in the US. But if you do care about my personal comment on this event, well first of all it is a good thing that voters turnout increased and that the extremes stabilized or regressed. I also hope that Raffarin will realize that it takes as much explaining as actual doing to succeed with any sort of reform, even if he is irremediably incompetent. I also think that the conservatives are in power for another 3 years, and it would be foolish to expect them to suddendly turn social-democrats because the left won. Since the reshuffle will not bring any new face at the top, I therefore expect little change in policies, but simply a cosmetic arrangement.
The American election issue has been debated over and over, and I will only say I am glad the SC put an end to such an embarrassing joke. Someone will have to explain to me this US fascination for technology when it is so much more simple to put a name in an enveloppe. I just thought the cartoon was funny, period. Sad to know some of you are feeling insecure enough to be immediately defensive about it.
As for stupid things done or said by Bush, they indeed are countless and almost daily (see the whole current row over Clarke's allegations), but sending Powell to the UNSC with "proofs" that Iraq was hiding WMD and not being able to find a single one after the invasion (while on the way losing both your allies and the rest of the world's post-9/11 empathy) is a personal favourite. And I am only talking about political stupidity, not even intellectual failure (like calling people from Greece "Grecians", for instance).
And oh yeah, there's been at least one president assassinated. His name was Sadi Carnot (dead 1894). There is also a PM that more gloriously died in the arms of a woman (not his wife's, of course) in the 1950's, but I can't recall his name.
Stéphane,
You are obviously a young man and are not much acquainted with the odious history of the French Communist party.
The French Communist party was a willing stooge of Mr. Stalin till the day he died. After Germany and the Soviet Union concluded the nonaggression pact of 1939, the FCP acted as a fifth column, sabotaging French armaments manufacture and informing against France by way of their Red handlers to the Boches. The FCP continued its treason right up to the launch of Operation Barbarossa, after which the FCP shared Mr. Stalin's disappointment with Herr Hitler.
The FCP supported the crushing of the 1956 Hungarian uprising, the suppression of the Prague Spring in 1968, well, the list goes on and on with the FCP blindly supporting every heavy-handed gamble of the Soviet Union.
In the 20th century Communism was responsible for magnitudes more murders of its own citizens than all the casualties from both World Wars combined.
Lastly Communism is failed in theory and practice. Before embracing a spent ideology, learn something about it. Read Orwell, not just 1984 but his damning essays (he was a dyed-in-the-wool socialist). Read F.A. Hayek, The Road to Serfdom. Read Sydney Hook. Read your man Camus.
Other than nostalgia for the Commune, antic mobs, bombastic slogans, and the splashy use of red, what is the fascination for Communism over a young Frenchman today? I'll be interested to hear your answer.
DGB
"what is the fascination for Communism over a young Frenchman today"
In his case, I'd suspect the presence of "beautiful women" around to be fascinating enough.
see the whole current row over Clarke's allegations
Actually, Clarke's broadside against Bush seems to have driven Bush's numbers up. He has widened his lead over Kerry since Clarke unleashed his pack of lies. If you are interested, I will be happy to point out the lies that Clarke told. These lies, widely exposed, destroyed Clarke's credibility. It was easy to do, no one had to make up words to put in Clarke's mouth, nor did they have to selectively mangle quotes to make him look bad, all that had to be done was lift the rock, the sunshine did the rest. So who is the stupid one?
Powell to the UNSC with "proofs" that Iraq was hiding WMD and not being able to find a single one after the invasion (while on the way losing both your allies and the rest of the world's post-9/11 empathy) is a personal favourite.
I know that you claim that Chirac new that they wouldn't be found before the war, but you have yet to show me a quote from anyone at the time who did not believe the weapons existed. I am still not sure that they will not be found.
If Bush was lying, why didn't he just plant the weapons? If he was stupid, so was every other leader. Also, you may have noticed that the UN is up to its ears in corruption scandals regarding Iraq right now. It seems that billions disappeared, with help of the UN, France, and Russia. I guess that Bush just wasn't in the know the way France was about the true nature of the UN and France, so maybe you score a point there.
Sad to know some of you are feeling insecure enough to be immediately defensive about it.
No, We know you don't like Bush, I just want to know why, not counting the reason that nobody else you know likes him. I wanted to see if you have actual, thought through reasons for not liking Bush.
So this is the coverage you get in France of this scandal that shows the UN for what it is?
Damian :
You're right and I don't talk about the past of communism, because it is awful, the point which is important in communism is the belief in sharing, that's very important because it's considered as a nonsense for some capitalist minds.
My fear is that the future of capitalism will confort Aldous Huxley vision of the future of our society.
No, We know you don't like Bush, I just want to know why, not counting the reason that nobody else you know likes him. I wanted to see if you have actual, thought through reasons for not liking Bush.
Well, thank you for noticing. I'll try to make it short.
I don't like Bush because no matter what, with America's unrivaled power over the rest of the world, he is my president, and I didn't get to vote for him. He is my president and decided to reject the Kyoto treaty, firing scientists from the presidential advisory board to put politicians who couldn't tell their ass from their elbow if they were in front of a lab bench. Maybe Kyoto was bad, but doing nothing is worse, and considering I am still quite young and healthy, I'll still be there when time will come to pick up the tab. Hoping it won't be this bad.
He also scrapped the previous administration's efforts to reduce gas consumption, favouring his own friends in the oil business: market laws being what they are, unabated consumptions means prices on the rise, and if you guys whine about paying 2 bucks a gallon, then come for a ride in Europe.
He effectively did the opposite of everything he promised or suggested would be economically sound: he cut funding for schools, lowered taxes for the richest part of the nation, raised import taxes, kept agricultural subsidies, made a joke of the EPA. All of this having indirect effects on my country, of course.
He played with world markets by asking them to fund a 500 billions deficit. Did anyone of you guys wonder what would happen if another "spyplane incident" would happen off the coast of China and Beijing decided to stop buying govt bonds? The State would go bankrupt in no time, interest rates would skyrocket, and there would be quite a world recession. My "president" is therefore risking my job, and I am not happy with that. But if anyone of you feels your country is better off than four years ago, please feel free to develop your point.
Of course he went for an largely unjustified war in Iraq, thereby diverting resources that could have been allocated to a more effective war against terrorism. He had no post-war plan, is risking general civil war accross Iraq and for very little result, except to show young idiots across the muslim world that the West is the enemy and that they should join the Jihad. He effectively joined Bin Laden in his recruitement effort, and now I have even more chances than before to be blown up to pieces. You guys seem to be thinking that war is just like a video game where you shoot at bad guys that anyway only appear on the news in some faraway place. I gather most of you haven’t spent some time in the army, and never had to wonder what the fuck they were doing on guard duty at 2 am in the cold. I do. Cowardice is not to refuse to blow someone’s head with laser-guided “daisy-cutters”. Cowardice is to go for the easy, violent way and refuse to think a viable, long-term solution. George Bush is a coward and a liar, that’s why I don’t like him.
My "president" also widened the gap between Europe and the US (or even simply between Europeans). He turned the greatest nation of this world, one that had the power and leadership to make things better, into another bully on the block, just like France and England were between the XVIIth & XIXth centuries. How nice. This president of mine is risking my life, my job, my health, and I have no possibility to get rid of him. That’s why I am not happy with him.
Besides, I am quite angry with thugs like you that want to put the blame on France, blindly defending whatever the Bush administration does or says. If it were so perfect, well then there’d probably be a World revolution so that in no time you’d have about 200 more states willing to join the Union. Unfortunately this didn’t happen, and I would be pleased to see anyone here say at least once (see, I am not too demanding) that maybe it is because some incompetent mistakes were commited. I’m still waiting for someone here to seriously ask “why do so many different people in the world hate us so much, I why wasn’t it this bad four years ago?”
Stephane-
Your comments are the most pathetic and delushional I have read in ages. You are a perfect example of the absolute brainless pussys that populate your country.
You are so fucking stupid it is insane to waste one's time commmenting on your nonsense. You seem to attach to this site like a whore leach, defending your country on-line when your not out cashing your welfare check.
I pray for a physical altercation and military conflict between the US and France some day, so do many, many millions of others in the US.
The US is through listening to your utter nonsense and your practice of only being able to speak a jumble of 50 words when the use of 5 will do. Your nation is a proven failure across the board, and your citezens have the fortitude and vision of shit flies off of a cows ass.
You will get your little asses crushed and handed back to you so fast it'll knock the body odor right off of you fools. This will be easily accomplished by a group of un-armed US female soldiers.
Why do you damn french freaks spend soooo much time looking outside your sterile little world analyzing and tossing critcisms to the US as your own country falls pitifully apart and the problems you accuse others of all sit right in your own backyeard within your own country. please don't tell me all you welfare fools are blind too?
You french have such a marvelous way of flattering your own selves and pumping up your own self-worth that you are truly a laughable disgrace in world politics. Your desperation is so evident with every step you take, that it makes for a worthwhile comedy of sorts.
Your pitiful little welfare whore country is a modern disgrace. You have one aircraft carrier that can't even take a sunday drive out to sea without a problem forcing it home.
You damn french freaks need to know this- YOU ARE HATED here in the US by a huge majority of the population. We do not have the time or the desire to obsess over you french fools as you do with the US as you ride it's coat tails and milk it's teats. We simply stand back and laugh at your desperate worthlessness.
You have a magazine in france that had a cover for the New Year that read "The man who ruined our year- Bush"
What REALLY is the matter with you imbeciles?
Bush(!) has caused your nation such disgrace and decay on his own???
Would an elderly french citizen who cooked to death when the weather got warm last year in your country feel the same way as your general public does about who is to blame for you joke of a nation?
Look inwards at yourselves first, or continue to make a mockery of your own culture and politics.
Pato :
Your're so great pato ! Even if I'm not gay, I think I'm in love with you !
Kiss !
He is my president and decided to reject the Kyoto treaty,..
Did you know that the US rejected Kyoto before Bush took office? All treaties must be ratified by the Senate. The Senate rejected it 99-0 while Clinton was president. This would be something called a historical fact, of little interest to you I know.
He also scrapped the previous administration's efforts to reduce gas consumption,
What efforts? Really, what efforts?
he cut funding for schools,
When? Where?
I give you the agricultural subsidy thing, but that is not something new invented by Bush. And it is a real belly laugh for me to hear a Frenchman criticize us for subsidies. I give you the import duty thing to, and I will tell you something you might not like, Kerry would be worse. His is campaigning on protecting US jobs.
I cant respond to everything, so I am going to pick and choose the most ridiculous
Beijing decided to stop buying govt bonds? ...
Why should this bother you? Presumably, if Beijing decided to stop buying US bonds, France, with its 4 percent of GDP deficit would have the market to itselt and interest rates would drop, under the scenario of a bonds embargo, since China's money, that they earn in the US, would bave to go somewhere. I am sure that this argument is too subtle for you, so I will drop it.
Of course he went for an largely unjustified war in Iraq
So you think that the Iraqis would have been better off if we left Saddam in power? The mass graves meant nothing to you? What about Iraq's connections with Al Quaeda?
The documented meeting between the head of the Mukhabarat and bin Laden in Khartoum, Sudan, in 1996--a meeting that challenged all the CIA's assumptions about "secular" Iraq's distance from Islamist terrorism--should have set off alarm bells. It didn't.
There is other evidence of a connection between Iraq and al Qaeda
Read the whole thing but be careful, too much information will destroy your carefully crafted hatred.
refuse to think a viable, long-term solution.
You have a racist belief that democracy is impossible in Iraq, this is a difference of opinion. Time will settle this argument, but you have only your prejudices against Arabs as proof that it will not work. One thing we learned was that what was going on was not working.
I know you liked it better when it was just Americans that were being attacked by these guys, and can't understand why they are attacking you, but it is because they are drawn to weakness.
blow someone’s head with laser-guided “daisy-cutters”.
The daisy cutters worked and millions of refugees have returned to Afghanistan. We are a practical people, I know you would enjoy it if more of our soldiers were killed than strictly necessary, but we prefer they live. Were you rooting for those under the daisy cutters who turned Afghanistan into a terrorist training camp? Just wondering.
My "president" also widened the gap between Europe and the US
So, if we gave in to Chirac and Putin's scheme to turn Iraq into a colony, widely documented everywhere except the French press, for some reason, and went along with the UN, which also was stealing billions of dollars from the Iraqi people under "oil for food", then things would be all cozy? By the way, if you are wondering about that last one, you will have to google in English to find anything since France does not seem to cover it in your press which is more open than ours, you say.
This is getting kind of long, so I will continue it on the next post, I wouldn't want you to think that I didn't read every word.
blindly defending whatever the Bush administration does
If this were true, you would be able to knock down my arguments like so many dominos, yet you never try. It leads me to believe that you do not have the facts on your side.
I’m still waiting for someone here to seriously ask “why do so many different people in the world hate us so much,
Well probably because we know they would come up with a list of ill-informed reasons gleaned from the agitprop that they are fed each day from their state controlled press, as you just did.
It really seems to come down to the fact that Europe has chosen to start world wars, impoverishing itself, then chose socialism, making you poorer every year, and you abandoned your military, giving you less and less say in the world, yet you blame us.
You can't imagine how pathetic it looks from here, and how little we care for your ignorant hatred. If we took the limits off the number of immigrants we would accept from France, your country would soon be drained of its top talent.
We stopped pretending we would ratify Kyoto. We only spent $15 billion on AIDS in Africa. We did not take dictation from Paris. If we had done these things, it would minimize the world’s anger.
Is the world angry at Russia, which spends nothing on AIDS and rebuffed Kyoto? Is the world angry at China, which got a pass on Kyoto and spends nothing on AIDS for other countries?
Is the world angry at North Korea for killings its people? Angry at Iran for smothering that vibrant nation with corrupt and thuggish mullocracy? Angry at Syria for occupying Lebanon? Angry at Saudi Arabia for its denial of women’s rights? Angry at Russia for corrupt elections? Is the world angry at China for threatening Taiwan, or angry at France for joining the Chinese in joint military exercises that threatened the island on the eve of an election? Is the world angry at Zimbabwe for stealing land and starving people? Is the world angry at Pakistan for selling nuclear secrets? Is the world angry at Libya for having an NBC program?
Is the world angry at the thugs of Fallujah?
Is the world angry at anyone besides America and Israel?
Here is the American version of your rant with the difference that it is backed by facts.
Steph, your comments on the election/and the other article were notable, and interesting, however I did not find the time to respond to anything there. I would like to know your thoughts on villain-pin heads new assignment as interior minister. If Sarkozy was so popular, why the movement? If I understand, Sarkozy keeps his ranking as top minister under Raffarin, but is this not a demotion for both Sarkozy and Pinhead?
OK. My turn. Since you got so much off your chest against Bush, I think I will be a “thug” here, and defend MY PRESIDENT.
Kyoto
Please, Steph, let us put Kyoto out of its misery. Kyoto was negotiated in December 1997, and it was a Senate Resolution (98), that did not agree to a treaty that EXEMPTED OTHER COUNTRIES from requirements applicable to the US. They instructed the CLINTON-GORE white house NOT to sign the expensive and SELECTIVLY applied Kyoto. Please note that your buddy John Kerry was in on the Resolution. Clinton flagrantly ignored the Senate resolution, and the US signed the treaty in November 1998, but CLINTON never sent Kyoto to the Senate for a vote.
Rather than “reject” Koyto, President Bush has merely continued the Clinton Policy of refusing to send Kyoto to the Senate for a vote. I agree with MY PRESIDENT on this one, Steph. The treaty is way to expensive for the US, with limited proving promises of good results. If you all want it so badly, then all should pay as well. Talked to any Russians about this treaty? This treaty is as bad as the draconian penalties the EU hit Microsoft with.
He played with world markets by asking them to fund a 500 billions deficit Oh, stop it. France has ignored the European Stability Pact to accommodate the biggest budget deficit of ANY EUROPEAN UNION MEMBER. Worry about your own deficit, and then come talk to me about mine.
Of course he went for a largely unjustified war in Iraq, thereby diverting resources that could have been allocated to a more effective war against terrorism.
Go ahead, keep pretending Iraq is America’s problem and has nothing to do with the war on terrorism. Go bury your head in the sand with the “new president of al Qaeda”, Zapatero. The connection between Iraq and terrorism is obvious, for anybody WILLING to see it. Saddam provided money, support and shelter to many terrorists: Yasin (first WTC bombing), abu Nidal, Abu Abbas, and more. He also funded “hamas”cide bombings in Israel. But that is not terrorism to you, is it?
George Bush is a coward and a liar, that’s why I don’t like him
Well, my turn to tell you why I have no respect for your bitch Chirac.
Instead of the focus of the UN being kept on Iraq, Saddam and terrorism, Chirac induced others to regard the problem as one of restraining the US. This fucked up position of Chirac was in an attempt to get France greater influence in the world and in the newly expanding EU. So, Chirac little “diplomacy” results in splitting NATO, EU and the UNSC, and CONVINCES Saddam that he would not face the US army. Nice work, jock strap. So, tell me Steph, who is diverting action AWAY from the war on Terrorism? Not MY PRESIDENT!
Who can forget Chirac little rows with other leaders. His fight with Blair over many European issues results in them not talking for six months, his calling Italy’s Berlusconi a “dangerous populist”, his attitude toward Aznar, and his famous “shut up” comment to central/eastern European leaders. Well, well, talk about “widening gaps”, will you?
For lack of space, I will not even get into your fucked up policies in the Middle East and Africa. Or the “Oil for Fraud” UN program that kept France from wanting anybody going into Iraq.
why do so many different people in the world hate us so much
It is because of the Muslims, and the growing global anti-Semitism and Islam’s success at equating Israel and the US as a single entity. They have most in the world believing that the war on terror is a war against Islam. It is the French ambassador to Britain making anti-semitic comments, Matahir Mohammed at an international conference getting applause for his comments about Jewish control of the world. As the world becomes more anti-Isreal they become more anti-American. Except in France. You boners have always been that way.
WOW, that was invigorating! Hope you felt as good after your rant as I do after mine.
Pato,
I don't want, or look forward to a day when America and France are in a war on each other.
While I do beleive France is wrong on just about everything in the world of foreign policy, I do not beleive they are an evil entity.
They are just rapped up in short term, junk bond like, investment scemes on the world stage.
A real, plain spoken, leader, and a couple of years of humble pie, and they will be back in the ring on the cutting edge.
Andy,
One first quick note on the govt reshuffle, then a reply to your reply in the next post.
The finance ministry is traditionnally ranked as #2 in French govts, so this is definitely a promotion for Sarkozy. In the current economy, power is mostly in words (look at the way people listen to every single of Greenspan’s comments), and therefore putting a credible figure at the head of the Treasury is the first step towards convincing the markets that the govt is following a credible policy (which it is not, but from now on it will be less obvious). I personnally think he’ll be a good help to get our deficits back under the 3% limit, but only because that’ll make Raffarin and Chirac’s life more miserable (he did the opposite in the early 90’s to support the then-PM Balladur).
As for Villepin moving to the interior, well apparently he’d asked for it, and since he did a good job on Iraq (of course he did, that’s why you were alone with the Brits on invasion day) he couldn’t simply be demoted to an inferior position. Besides, his replacement by former European commissioner Barnier reflects the fact that over the next few months, France’s focus will mainly be on Europe: the enlargement, the constitutional treaty, the renegociation of the Commission’s budget. It’ll also be easier for the US to accept a comeback to normal relations if he is not around.
Kyoto
Yeah, maybe I should actually be grateful that at least he’s been frank. But before saying the treaty is not fair, maybe you should consider that the US is the largest polluter in the world. It’s like taxes: the more you earn, the more you should pay at the end. If you ask a 10% decrease in CO2 emissions to everyone, well then the average Europeans, Aussies and Americans might use less their cars of opt for other sources of electricity. As for the Chinese or Indian dude in his backward countryside, what choice does he have? Breathe less? Also, CO2 reduction is not linked directly to economic growth (even more so in post-industrial countries like ours): otherwise, how could you explain that China, having in the past years a stronger economical growth than India, the increase in emissions is so different?
This treaty is as bad as the draconian penalties the EU hit Microsoft with.
Well the previous administration (and a few States, as I seem to remember) at least seemed to have no issue with launching antitrust lawsuits against Microsoft. Besides, the European commission is, from the very beginning, bound to ensure optimal conditions for trade within the internal market (the whole structure is a bit complex, but basically all commissioners have trade-related positions: no interior commissioner, no military: security and justice are in the so-called 2nd and 3rd pillars, out of the commission’s reach). Monopoly is bad, it should be fought in most cases (last-mile service being the unavoidable exception, I guess): and if the US govt doesn’t have the political will to do so, well then I’m glad someone else does the job..
He played with world markets by asking them to fund a 500 billions deficit Oh, stop it. France has ignored the European Stability Pact to accommodate the biggest budget deficit of ANY EUROPEAN UNION MEMBER. Worry about your own deficit, and then come talk to me about mine.
I wouldn’t be yapping around if your budget was only in the 100 billions range; after all, people started screaming at Reagan’s deficits only after 200 billions. But it is not either like if the world is full of money waiting to be poured into your deficits. 500 billions are a lot. The world can easily accomodate a 50 bn deficit from France or whomever else, and so far fares pretty well with your 500 bn. The question I ask is therefore not what happens when everything goes well, but what will happen if anything goes wrong. The second half of this article sums things up quite clearly: ”If, or when, the rest of the world decides to stop funnelling the $US2 billion per working day that the US needs to pay for its spending, Henry says we're all in for "an economic adjustment of major proportions". American interest rates would skyrocket and the greenback would drop like a stone, for starters (…). The deficit "explosion" would leave the US economy "unambiguously worse off in the medium and long term". Bush is currently giving a rail of coke to America: short-term boost, long-term problems. Whatever happens to France is a second-rate problem to anyone in the world compared to the first-rate problems we'll have to face with the failure of the American economy. Hyperpower comes to a price: everybody has a microscope up your ass to see what shit will come on their face.
Go ahead, keep pretending Iraq is America’s problem and has nothing to do with the war on terrorism. Go bury your head in the sand with the “new president of al Qaeda”, Zapatero. The connection between Iraq and terrorism is obvious, for anybody WILLING to see it.
Look, I’ve read people hear WILLING to link Evolution and Marxism, or the Oklahoma bombing and Al Qaeda (although in that case I hope it was just a joke). Thing is, there were no WMD, period. Crickey, I wasn’t even alone to think so. Why is there the need to pull new reasons every time? First the WMD, then terrorist links, then the freedom of Iraqis (some of which are quite grateful those days, indeed). If you were to look to rightfully punish terrorist-harbouring countries, then why has Blair gone to shake Kadhafi’s hand? How about Syria and Iran? Saddam really was a minor pain compared to what Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are, if only because his only ideology was Saddam, not an islamic world revolution. Yet he is the one punished. That is what I call a waste of energy and money. Does the name Jay Garner ring a bell, anyone?
Well, my turn to tell you why I have no respect for your bitch Chirac.
Well I have no particular respect for Mr. Chirac, but I don’t go into name-calling with Bush either. Or at least I don’t call him a bitch. And you have every right to criticize France’s actions in Africa. But since I was talking about Bush, this is irrelevant.
Instead of the focus of the UN being kept on Iraq, Saddam and terrorism, Chirac induced others to regard the problem as one of restraining the US.
Well yes, ‘coz otherwise that’d be implicitely accepting Bush’s position that Iraq and the current war on terrorism were linked, and more than remotely.
This fucked up position of Chirac was in an attempt to get France greater influence in the world and in the newly expanding EU.
No, this is more complex. C’mon, we’re only 60 millions frenchmen, we can’t rule the world anymore and the EU won’t be a global player before another 50 years, if ever, and even then it’ll be too late. Even if it was good for our collective ego to put up a good fight, it is also wise to make sure that your current overwhelming power doesn’t go unchecked, since we have no reason to believe the US will always put it to a good use (why would they? National interests may diverge on many questions, after all, and I am not even particularly speaking of military matters).
So, Chirac little “diplomacy” results in splitting NATO, EU and the UNSC, and CONVINCES Saddam that he would not face the US army. Nice work, jock strap.
If the UNSC were to be always united, it’d be some sort of world government. If it were always united behind the US, well then we’d have reached the Empire. By the way, didn’t the US split the UNSC by vetoing a resolution last week?
The EU split in my opinion came from Aznar’s little games of fame and power. Although France and Germany are the main continental powers, it was clear they couldn’t speak in the name of Europe, since UK, the third power, was on the other side. Yet Aznar got his microfriends to speak out their pledge of allegiance to the US days after the EU foreign ministries had met to agree on a common stance (which basically was “we don’t agree, but we agree on that”). Now that’s team-playing and keeping the EU together, indeed. Chirac’s words were undiplomatical but indeed true (and I am amazed you Americans don’t agree with the bottom line of it): France and Germany are kind enough to accept the eastern European countries in the EU in spite of their unpreparedness and against their own populations’ opinion, we pay for their structural funds, and yet they stab us in the back as a big thank you? Individual statements of support would have been accepted (after all, they are independant nations), but doing this in a European frame clearly was an insult.
So, tell me Steph, who is diverting action AWAY from the war on Terrorism? Not MY PRESIDENT!
Well yes, since Iraq had nothing to do with Al Qaeda or islamic terrorism, the major problem at hand at the moment. Or not more to do than the average nation out there. Hell, never mind, I’ll come back to that when I’ll have learned to spell Saudi Arabia and Pakistan in a dozen languages.
Q: why do so many different people in the world hate us so much.
A: It is because of the Muslims, and the growing global anti-Semitism and Islam’s success at equating Israel and the US as a single entity. They have most in the world believing that the war on terror is a war against Islam.
Woaw, now that’s some deep thinking! So why is anti-americanism on the rise in the West as well, and mostly in the past 4 years? Sudden waves of conversions, or maybe some wrongdoings on your part as well? Can’t you question the righteousness of your government only ONCE?
It is the French ambassador to Britain making anti-semitic comments
In which case you are equating anti-Israeli comments with anti-semitism. Calling Israel a “shitty country” risking WWIII is idiotically anti-israeli, not idiotically antisemite. I do not think anti-French comments here to be anti-catholic. Or are they?
As the world becomes more anti-Isreal they become more anti-American. Except in France. You boners have always been that way.
Except that we gave you your independance, and gave them their nukes.
Oklahoma bombing and Al Qaeda (although in that case I hope it was just a joke).
You could read this, except that after it, you would either have to call your hero Richard Clarke a liar, or accept that there was Iraqi involvement in Oklahoma City.
Also could you please explain why Ramzi Yousef, who planned the WTC bombing of '93, nephew of Al Quaeda's KSM, was given shelter in Iraq by Saddam?
I confidently predict that you will not answer the question.
Drive-by,
Please refrain to post links that are irrelevant to what you say to support your own assertions. Nowhere in this article is there a reference to links between AQ and Oklahoma city. You made me waste my time reading it. As for Mr.Clark being a liar, well we'll see what the commission (whose work is luckily not solely based on Mr.Clarke's words) will say.
Second, this article mainly supports the idea that the Clinton administration is as responsible as the Bush one is. Good for him, but Clinton is not president anymore. We come back to Bush's willingness to take on Iraq before the terrorist problem materialized.
As for Ramzi Youssef being sheltered in Iraq, I guess that "the enemies of my enemies are my friends" is a good answer. It is indeed a guilty behaviour, but it is probably one of Saddam's lesser crimes. The Jackal was hosted and sheltered by Sudan for many years, yet nobody ever mentioned this country as a direct sponsor of his many, many crimes. If anyone did, then I might ask why nobody bombed the hell out of them yet. It's not like mass graves and oppressed people are missing in Darfour either, eh?
My turn now to ask you a question, to which I expect you to reply by frantic denial or any sort of unrelated comment:
Colin P., an American high-ranking civil servant, recently declared that "he might have refrained from recommending a US invasion of Iraq, if he had had proof that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction". Luckily, he had top-notch German intelligence and invasion took place.
Colin P. is:
a) unpatriotic?
b) a cheese-eating surrendering monkey?
c) a Democrat liar?
d) all of the above?
Steph, Thanks for your insights on the shuffle of the French Cabinet. As far as making Raffarin’s life more miserable, I don’t think that is possible. Raffarin is already a dead man walking. Most likely kept by Chirac to continue to be the “hatchet” man on attempting to keep pushing the pension reforms (and more). What you said about Villepin (easier for US relations), I had not thought of. But I think you are entirely correct on that point. I am very much disappointed with the coverage in the Washington Post/Times on the French moves. Only one article made it into the Times, didn’t see one in the Post……maybe in the Sunday papers there will be more.
As for your other post, here goes……
Microsoft
My beef with the EU is that it is punishing Microsoft for activities permitted under the settlement with the US Justice Department, which, I feel, imposed quite fair, and, indeed, needed controls on Microsoft. This sets a very nasty precedent of allowing EU authorities to change rules on a whim and then charge massive fines for the violations.
Deficit
Ummm, well, Steph 1, Andy 0. I read yesterday a quote that fits a bit here, about Frances’ deep financial predicament after the American Revolution and the ballooning of the deficit by the ministers of Louis XVI. “Even thought the debt was no worse than comparable debts incurred in fighting the other wars deemed equally essential to sustain the nation’s position as a great power …reflect that no state with great power has, in fact, ever subordinated what it takes to be irreducible military interest to the considerations of a balanced budget.” A good amount of the deficit has been due to the war on terror, and the American people will, as the quote said, allow for more of an increase in the deficit because of this. However, what you say about China is correct. The only spot there is that their economy is, now, dependant on selling a large amount of their products to the US, so they are somewhat dependant on the US as well.
but I don’t go into name-calling with Bush…
You call Bush a “liar” and a “coward”. My mistake. Silly me. I tend to think that is name calling. However, if it offends you, out of respect to you, I will no longer use the phase “your b**** Chirac”. How about “corrupt”?
Splits in UNSC/EU, etc
You say that in is OK for France (or any country) to put a check on the US in UNSC. Fine, I agree. But then you say that it is not OK for the eastern European countries to not fall in lock step with France/Germany in the EU. Seems to me the logic would be the same for both the UN and EU.
The anti-French comments here are not anti-catholic. France is not equated to Catholicism the same way that Israel is equated to Judaism.
In the 1960’s and 1970’s leftist activists were much more welcoming to immigrants than the folks on the right, therefore taking up most of the Muslim vote. Now that partnership as mutated along with wider changes in political and societal views. The Muslim groups have combined with and helped reenergize a European/American left that is defined by a complementary hostility to the US and Israel. Did you notice at the so call anti-War protests how many anti-Israel groups were there with signs calling for the end of Israel? Most every sign here in DC for the protests said “Stop the War”. Next line said “End the Occupation of Palestine”. I saw hundreds of Israeli flags with the Star of David covered with the Nazi swastika. Anti-Israel groups feed the anti-war anti/American revolt.
You say it is the policies of the US that has fed the increase in anti-Americanism. I am NOT defending the policies of the US when I say it was the anti-Israel groups that have led to more anti-American feelings in the world. Most people in the world may not know about ANY American policies, but they all know about Israel-Palestine. This is an issue that they can, and do take a side on. My point is that the Muslims have succeeded in getting the leftist groups to be able to equate US with Israel—both of which the left sees as representative of the worst excesses of capitalism and imperialism. And this feeds anti-Americanism. Nor is this an affirmation of every Israeli policy. Both American and Israel can and do need to change many of their policies. But even if we changed every single thing that the left says is wrong with America, I do not think it would help any with the attitude of most Muslims.
Except that we gave you your independance
Friday I was having a horrific day at work. On days like that, I sometimes will go to the National Gallery to look at paintings, and clear my head. Well, there is a series of rooms that house a collection called “Small French Paintings” which is one of my favorite exhibits at the National. I saw something I had not noticed before in one of the paintings. It showed a statue in the background, and engraved on the statue was the phase:
“L’AMERIQUE ET LES MERS, O LOUIS! VOUS RECONNAISSEN POUR LEUR LIBERATEU”. My French is not very good, but, who am I to argue that point? Even if your help was only to get back at the English.
"it is the French ambassador making anti-jewish comments"...
This one got so much mileage lately, how typical of many Yanks here who can't seem to look at their own backyard, especially the now infamous anti-Jewish comments made by their good reverend Billy Graham to Richard Nixon at the White House, of all places. Tell me what's the difference between the French ambassador, Jesse Jackson, Billy Graham or Richard Nixon? Your hypocrisy is laughable.
Colin Powell is a fool, in my opinion. I am curious to know why Iraq had pesticides stored in drums buried in underground camoflaged bunkers? And if one of the sources was a liar, it does not prove that the rest of it was false.
I love this quote:
In December 1988, Dow Chemical sold $1.5 million of pesticides to Iraq, despite U.S. government concerns that they could be used as chemical warfare agents. An Export-Import Bank official reported in a memorandum that he could find "no reason" to stop the sale, despite evidence that the pesticides were "highly toxic" to humans and would cause death "from asphyxiation."
So when the US sells insecticides to Iraq, they are potential chemical weapons, when we find the same thing buried in bunkers next to ammo dumps, they are no such thing?
And my link connected Iraq to Oklahoma City, and Al Quaeda to Iraq and the '93 World Trade Center bombing. If I recall correctly. Both making Iraq a legitimate target in the war on terror.
You can call the sheltering of a man who attempted to murder 25,000 Americans, the minimum who would have died had the bomb worked as they intended, a small crime, well good luck to you in your fight on terror. I guess I would say the same thing if he only tried to kill 25,000 Parisians... No I wouldn't.
At least we are discussing common facts though. Beats your comments like "fat assed" and whatnot.
So, for simplicity. I will give you that there was no Muslim involvement in Oklahoma City, even though there was. And explain to me why I should consider the bombing of the World Trade Center a "small crime". Ramzi Yousef entered the country with a passport that showed that he orginated in Bagdhad on the trip to the US where the bombing took place. Another of the leaders immediately fled to Bagdhad on the day of the bombing. This is more than the "enemy of my enemy"
Remind us again what country issued Mohamed Atta's passport?
