Will You Follow the Boycott of French Products? - Post-9/11 Era

Will You Follow the Boycott of French Products?

Post-9/11 Era Forum

Pages:  1Original Forum    Popular Forums    Search

Posted by: Dreamzwalker

This war has changed people: Some people seem to have this crazy idea of boycotting French wine, changing the names of items beginning with the name French (French fries becomes Freedom Fries), fashion designs, etc. etc.

Are you doing/going to do this as well?
Jump aboard the Band Wagon?
Why would you do this?

Reply To this Message

Posted by: Tacobor

hmmmmmm although freedom kissing has possibilities.

Reply To this Message

Posted by: Dreamzwalker

Why would you perform the boycott?

Reply To this Message

Posted by: Curley Joe

quote:
Originally posted by Dreamzwalker
Why would you perform the boycott?


Why wouldn't one? America watched as France, in unprecedented fashion not only did not support the U.S. in the war to oust Saddam but undermined in every way possible its efforts by sending representatives to U.N. nations to lobby against U.S. support by those nations. No ally has EVER done this blatant a thing. Now, the other shoe has but only begun its decent...

What did the French expect?

Accountability is next to Divinity...
Reply To this Message

Posted by: rowdyrjp

quote:
Originally posted by Curley Joe


Why wouldn't one? America watched as France, in unprecedented fashion not only did not support the U.S. in the war to oust Saddam but undermined in every way possible its efforts by sending representatives to U.N. nations to lobby against U.S. support by those nations. No ally has EVER done this blatant a thing. Now, the other shoe has but only begun its decent...

What did the French expect?

Accountability is next to Divinity...



And the US sure has that "divine" god-complex going!
Reply To this Message

Posted by: Curley Joe

quote:
Originally posted by rowdyrjp


And the US sure has that "divine" god-complex going!


Accountability is next to Divinity.
Reply To this Message

Posted by: rowdyrjp

quote:
Originally posted by Curley Joe


Accountability is next to Divinity.



So when will the US be held accountable?
Reply To this Message

Posted by: Curley Joe

quote:
Originally posted by rowdyrjp

So when will the US be held accountable?


When YOU are man enough to walk the walk...
Reply To this Message

Posted by: USA1

The French have their own internal problems brought on by their actions.
Had they actually helped the coalition, maybe the Iraq would still honor the 60 billion dollar oil agreement they had. The new Iraqi Oil minister said, “Absolutely not!” The French supported Saddam for 30 years and looked the other way to all of the atrocities.
A boycott is frivolous although as a free people, it’s up to you.
Frankly I could care less about the French or Canada. They’re both a bunch of fence riders.
I drink American wine anyway.

Reply To this Message

Posted by: kickace999

Italian Wine !!

Reply To this Message

Posted by: Curley Joe

quote:
Originally posted by USA1
The French have their own internal problems brought on by their actions.
Had they actually helped the coalition, maybe the Iraq would still honor the 60 billion dollar oil agreement they had. The new Iraqi Oil minister said, “Absolutely not!” The French supported Saddam for 30 years and looked the other way to all of the atrocities.
A boycott is frivolous although as a free people, it’s up to you.
Frankly I could care less about the French or Canada. They’re both a bunch of fence riders.
I drink American wine anyway.


France is aready beginning to feel the pinch:

1 in 5 Americans have stopped buying French products and France expects to lose $500 million worth of U.S. tourism this year alone. My family and I will no longer buy imported French feta cheese or French bottled water and we will never again fly Air France through Paris airport on the way to Greece like we have in the past. Nor will we ever visit France again. Just our personal little 'resolution' to the appeasement monkeys.
Reply To this Message

Posted by: fred hooper

Doesn't bother me, Aussie wine sales to the US have skyrocketed since the Iraq situation came around. I think we're the no 1 producer of quality wine in the world now.

Keep ditching the French wine for the Aussie plonk!

Fred Hooper

Reply To this Message

Posted by: Joywiggle

I am going to France next April and I will be spending lots of money on wine (I've already got friends asking me to bring some back for them) and culinary tools (I am working towards my bachelor's in Pastry Arts). I can't wait to visit the vineyards in the Loire Valley and check out the culinary shops in Paris!

Meanwhile I was taking a wine class last semester that focused primarily on France and I am taking another one this summer in which we sample the best wines from all over the world. My school could be financing an entire winery, they buy so much wine from France. We have wine tastings in every wine class - usually 5 wines at a time. The best ones really do seem to come from France and Italy. Every week I taste something I like and then I try to find it at the little Wine Shop around the corner. I have quite a little stockade of French wine as I don't drink it that often.

Reply To this Message

Posted by: mystic

My friends just cancelled their trip to France and they have decided to go to Scotland instead. They chose not to give the French their money!.....What can I say? Cest La Vie!

Reply To this Message

Posted by: Curley Joe

quote:
Originally posted by Joywiggle
I am going to France next April and I will be spending lots of money on wine (I've already got friends asking me to bring some back for them) and culinary tools (I am working towards my bachelor's in Pastry Arts). I can't wait to visit the vineyards in the Loire Valley and check out the culinary shops in Paris!

Meanwhile I was taking a wine class last semester that focused primarily on France and I am taking another one this summer in which we sample the best wines from all over the world. My school could be financing an entire winery, they buy so much wine from France. We have wine tastings in every wine class - usually 5 wines at a time. The best ones really do seem to come from France and Italy. Every week I taste something I like and then I try to find it at the little Wine Shop around the corner. I have quite a little stockade of French wine as I don't drink it that often.


Well...isn't that special...
Reply To this Message

Posted by: Joywiggle

quote:
Originally posted by Curley Joe


Well...isn't that special...


Hey, if there are people out there who want to be bigoted because they don't agree with other's opinions, that's fine. I would just rather not join them.

I'm happy to see that there are plenty of people around me who won't join them either. 200 students from my school went to France this April and May and 300 will go next April and May. We are trying to do our best to boost the French economy. My friend brought back over 30 bottles of wine.
Reply To this Message

Posted by: Joywiggle

quote:
Originally posted by USA1
The French supported Saddam for 30 years and looked the other way to all of the atrocities.


Who do you think put Saddam in power in the first place and handed him weapons to keep Iran under control? Hint: It wasn't France. Another hint: 4 words, the first word starts with U and the fourth ends with A.

BTW, I am not anti-American, I am an American myself. I just believe that we need to be held accountable when we screw up.
Reply To this Message

Posted by: fred hooper

The US didn't put Saddam in power for starters. They supported the regime in a proxy manner for a few years at a much later date in the 80's.

80% of Iraqs weapons were bought off the French, Germans & Russians. A big dose also came from the Chinese and can you remember the US ever using MIG fighter planes, AK47's and T grade tanks? The US stopped selling anything to Iraq in the 1980's and trade came to a complete halt before Gulf War 1 which continued till today. Guess who kept selling weapons, had billion dollar contracts amongst other things past the first Gulf War until recently? Take a real hard guess on that one.

Who actually righted their long past wrongs recently and repaid a debt to the Iraqi people? Who actually decided to do something instead of protecting their self interests and continually supporting a monster past the first Gulf War?

Fred Hooper

Reply To this Message

Posted by: Dreamzwalker

quote:
Originally posted by mystic
My friends just cancelled their trip to France and they have decided to go to Scotland instead. They chose not to give the French their money!.....What can I say? Cest La Vie!


I would rather see Scotland
That's just me though.



quote:
Originally posted by Joywiggle


Who do you think put Saddam in power in the first place and handed him weapons to keep Iran under control? Hint: It wasn't France. Another hint: 4 words, the first word starts with U and the fourth ends with A.

BTW, I am not anti-American, I am an American myself. I just believe that we need to be held accountable when we screw up.



America didn't put Saddam in power - the Ba'ath party did after his exile to Egypt. You may wish to view Saddam's bad history.
Reply To this Message

Posted by: Curley Joe

quote:
Originally posted by Joywiggle


200 students from my school went to France this April and May and 300 will go next April and May. We are trying to do our best to boost the French economy. My friend brought back over 30 bottles of wine.


Knock yourselves out...

1 in 5 Americans have stopped buying French products and France expects to lose $500 million American tourist dollars this year alone.

In the immortal words of Chevy Chase: I LIKE IT.....
Reply To this Message

Posted by: fred hooper

Is that why the French went into the Ivory Coast and cut a deal with the current government against the wishes of the nations people? We all know da French love their little bars of Choclate and the Ivory Coast is the major cocoa producer in the world.

Hit 'em where it hurts the French most. The old purse strings.

Fred Hooper

Reply To this Message

Posted by: mystic

quote:
Originally posted by fred hooper
Hit 'em where it hurts the French most. The old purse strings.


That's right!

Maybe next time they will get up and smell the cafe au lait before doing stupid things!
Reply To this Message

Posted by: Curley Joe

quote:
Originally posted by fred hooper
Is that why the French went into the Ivory Coast and cut a deal with the current government against the wishes of the nations people? We all know da French love their little bars of Choclate and the Ivory Coast is the major cocoa producer in the world.

Hit 'em where it hurts the French most. The old purse strings.

Fred Hooper


You know it, Fred...

BTW, I just love your sign-off—is it yours or a quote?
Reply To this Message

Posted by: fred hooper

I guess the French would be respected for their views if they actually didn't do all this crap behind the scenes, attempted to scuttle their allies plans for more euros whilst also pretending to play the moral police on the UN security council the whole time.

Kick em off the permanent council and let the Germans take their place at least.

Fred Hooper

Reply To this Message

Posted by: sloppy

quote:
Originally posted by Joywiggle


Who do you think put Saddam in power in the first place and handed him weapons to keep Iran under control? Hint: It wasn't France. Another hint: 4 words, the first word starts with U and the fourth ends with A.

BTW, I am not anti-American, I am an American myself. I just believe that we need to be held accountable when we screw up.



The USA did not place Saddam Hussein in power. Saddam Husseins rise to power was a carefully orchestrated one of his own accord... and those loyal to him.

Saddam Hussein essentially hijacked the Iraqi Presidency from Ahmad Hassan al-Bakr when he was 'urged' to step down for the 'good of the party'... at a time when Shiite riots were taking place in Bagdhad because of their inspiration from Ayatollah Khomeini's ousting of the shah of Iran. The Iraqi populace was about half Shiite then and Bakr was quite worried about the uprisings and decided that the Shiites should have their voice in the Baath Party. Saddam would have none of that and Bakr was pressed to step down. After Saddam took power he embarked on a brutal purging of both the political party and the military.

As far as 'supporting Saddam' goes, during the Iran-Iraq war, there was a very real concern that Iraq was going to lose the war to Iran. That was an outcome that disturbed many countries, including the USA, much of Europe, the Soviet Union, virtually all of the Gulf countries, etc...

In short, Iraq was supported by many nations and for very good reasons.... The fear of the religous state of Iran controlling the worlds 2nd largest supply of oil... and... being right on the doorstep of, and at odds with, Saudia Arabia... the worlds largest oil supply.

This is precisely why the US now, in Iraq, will not accept a Shiite religous government in Iraq... for the same *exact* reasons that so many countries across the world had back in the Iran/Iraq war.

As far as military support and the sales of arms... many countries sold military hardware to Iraq. In fact, individual sales from the Soviet Union, France, and China (in that order) dwarfed that of sales from the USA.
Reply To this Message

Posted by: ManuTOO

quote:
Originally posted by Dreamzwalker
America didn't put Saddam in power - the Ba'ath party did after his exile to Egypt. You may wish to view Saddam's bad history.


quote:
Originally posted by sloppy
The USA did not place Saddam Hussein in power. Saddam Husseins rise to power was a carefully orchestrated one of his own accord... and those loyal to him.


CIA did help Saddam to rise to power.

http://www.independent.org/tii/news/021020Marshall.html
<< Iraq’s first dose came in 1963, when a young CIA protege named Saddam Hussein helped overthrow Gen. Abdul Qassim, who had nationalized some of the country's foreign oil interests two years earlier [...]

After more domestic political instability, another CIA-backed coup in 1968 installed Hussein as deputy to the new military ruler. Hussein waited his turn and became dictator in 1979.

Hussein’s popularity in Washington peaked during the 1980s, when the Reagan-Bush administration supported his invasion of Iran with billions of dollars in export credits and top-secret satellite intelligence >>
Reply To this Message

Posted by: ManuTOO

quote:
Originally posted by fred hooper
The US stopped selling anything to Iraq in the 1980's and trade came to a complete halt before Gulf War 1 which continued till today.


USA sold weapons to Irak just before Irak invaded Koweit...


quote:
Guess who kept selling weapons, had billion dollar contracts amongst other things past the first Gulf War until recently? Take a real hard guess on that one.


France didn't sell weapons to Irak after 1st Gulf War... It's just a story that came out from us "journalists" imagination to support their beloved Bush.
Reply To this Message

Posted by: ManuTOO

quote:
Originally posted by mystic
My friends just cancelled their trip to France and they have decided to go to Scotland instead. They chose not to give the French their money!.....What can I say? Cest La Vie!



damn ! Scotland instead of France ??? That's more than patriotism, that's masochism !!!
They should go to Spain (its gov fully supported US, despite its population, that's great, no ?) or Italy, or even to Germany, instead..! Except if ur friends like coldness & rain ...
Reply To this Message

Posted by: frenchfries

quote:
Originally posted by ManuTOO



damn ! Scotland instead of France ??? That's more than patriotism, that's masochism !!!
They should go to Spain (its gov fully supported US, despite its population, that's great, no ?) or Italy, or even to Germany, instead..! Except if ur friends like coldness & rain ...


You are loosing your time Manu2. Those guys are convinced that France had maintain business with Murdoch's $hit.
Reply To this Message

Posted by: mystic

quote:
Originally posted by ManuTOO
France didn't sell weapons to Irak after 1st Gulf War... It's just a story that came out from us "journalists" imagination to support their beloved Bush.



LOL!!! Just a story huh? No...don't think so!
Reply To this Message

Posted by: rowdyrjp

No more arguments I can't think of any way of getting thru to right wing fascists so.... how about an old Barry McGuire protest song?


The eastern world, it is explodin’.
Violence flarin’, bullets loadin’
You’re old enough to kill, but not for votin’
You don’t believe in war, but what’s that gun you’re totin’
And even the Jordan River has bodies floatin’

But you tell me
Over and over and over again, my friend
Ah, you don’t believe
We’re on the eve
of destruction.

Don’t you understand what I’m tryin’ to say
Can’t you feel the fears I’m feelin’ today?
If the button is pushed, there’s no runnin’ away
There’ll be no one to save, with the world in a grave
Take a look around you boy
It’s bound to scare you boy

And you tell me
Over and over and over again, my friend
Ah, you don’t believe
We’re on the eve
of destruction.

Yeah, my blood’s so mad feels like coagulatin’
I’m sitting here just contemplatin’
You can’t twist the truth, it knows no regulation.
Handful of senators don’t pass legislation
And marches alone can’t bring integration
When human respect is disintegratin’
This whole crazy world is just too frustratin’

And you tell me
Over and over and over again, my friend
Ah, you don’t believe
We’re on the eve
of destruction.

Think of all the hate there is in Red China
Then take a look around to Selma, Alabama
You may leave here for 4 days in space
But when you return, it’s the same old place
The poundin’ of the drum, the pride and disgrace
You can bury your dead, but don’t leave a trace
Hate your next-door neighbor, but don’t forget to say grace
And… tell me over and over and over and over again, my friend
You don’t believe
We’re on the eve
Of destruction
Mm, no no, you don’t believe
We’re on the eve
of destruction.

Reply To this Message

Posted by: sloppy

quote:
Originally posted by ManuTOO


CIA did help Saddam to rise to power.



In the 1960's the CIA's support was of the Baath Party. At the time, the Baath Party supposedly was democratic, secular, and socialist... and the US supported that form of government in a time when there was much political turmoil and uncertainty going on in Iraq. They learned soon enough that the Baath Party was really a dictatorship.

That Saddam Hussein, via his own planned quest for power, eventually hijacked the Presidency for Iraq does not equate to Joywiggle's statement that the "USA put Saddam Hussein in power".

As far as your statement that the "CIA did help Saddam to rise to power"... at best I would say "the CIA's support of the Baath Party in the 1960's indirectly helped Saddam Hussein". Admittedly, though, even then I am skeptical because while the CIA did support the Baath Party coming to power back then, I have no reason to believe that given the absence of the CIA that the Baath Party wouldn't have eventually prevailed anyways. They were a fiercely determined and dedicated organization and Saddam Hussein was hell bent on rule... and would use any means necessary to achieve his goals.

The notion that "the USA put this big bad evil thug, Saddam Hussein, in charge of Iraq" is a load of bologna, to put it mildly.

As far as the article you linked to... It reads like a boring partisan bedtime story from an ingenuous author, Jonathan V. Marshall, whose sole intent is to mislead the naive. That, in and of itself, isn't surprising given that the Independent Institute is a Libertarian-oriented think tank.

Not only does Marshall intentionally mislead the reader in regards to the past relationship of the US, Iraq, and the Baath Party, he even guises his rhetoric to intentionally mislead the unsuspecting reader about the Iran/Iraq war.

In short, it's a lousy write-up and a very poor presentation. Although, my feeling is that's exactly what Marshall intended.
Reply To this Message

Posted by: Joywiggle

http://www.newsbatch.com/iraq.htm

quote:
Saddam Hussein soon became active in the Baath party as a gun man, and he participated in the assassination attempt on the country's strong man, General Kassem, in 1959. Then he went into exile in Cairo. There is evidence that his cooperation with the CIA began at that time as he made numerous trips to the American embassy while in exile. He returned to Iraq after 1963 when Kassem was ousted by the Baaths and was elected to the National Command. There is some basis to believe that General Kassem's ouster was assisted by the CIA which was motivated by a fear of Kassem's increased ties to the Soviet Union.

When the Baath party assumed power in 1968, again with the assistance of the CIA , Saddam Hussein emerged as the primary deputy leader to Muhammad Bakr, a general who became President. Very soon, because of his hard work, most of the actual control of the government was assumed by Saddam Hussein.


http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/press.htm

quote:
Washington, D.C., 25 February 2003 - The National Security Archive at George Washington University today published on the Web a series of declassified U.S. documents detailing the U.S. embrace of Saddam Hussein in the early 1980's, including the renewal of diplomatic relations that had been suspended since 1967. The documents show that during this period of renewed U.S. support for Saddam, he had invaded his neighbor (Iran), had long-range nuclear aspirations that would "probably" include "an eventual nuclear weapon capability," harbored known terrorists in Baghdad, abused the human rights of his citizens, and possessed and used chemical weapons on Iranians and his own people. The U.S. response was to renew ties, to provide intelligence and aid to ensure Iraq would not be defeated by Iran, and to send a high-level presidential envoy named Donald Rumsfeld to shake hands with Saddam (20 December 1983).


Those are just two of many many resources that I found, all saying the same thing.
Reply To this Message

Posted by: Joywiggle

quote:
Originally posted by sloppy

That Saddam Hussein, via his own planned quest for power, eventually hijacked the Presidency for Iraq does not equate to Joywiggle's statement that the "USA put Saddam Hussein in power".


"Put Saddam Hussein in power"...yes, that is an overstatement. Sorry about that. However, we certainly helped him rise to power, and the fact that he "might have without the help of the CIA" doesn't change that fact that we did indeed help him.
Reply To this Message

Posted by: ManuTOO

1st, thanks for ur extended answer, it's the 1st built one I got since very long time (excepting the ones from DreamZ).

quote:
Originally posted by sloppy
They learned soon enough that the Baath Party was really a dictatorship.


actually, Baath became a tool of Terror under the arm of Saddam. At 1st, it was really democratic, I guess..

quote:
That Saddam Hussein, via his own planned quest for power, eventually hijacked the Presidency for Iraq does not equate to Joywiggle's statement that the "USA put Saddam Hussein in power".
As far as your statement that the "CIA did help Saddam to rise to power"... at best I would say "the CIA's support of the Baath Party in the 1960's indirectly helped Saddam Hussein"


in the early 1960's, maybe u're right, but in the end of 1960's (more exactly) it seems some help was more directly aimed to Saddam. But maybe in that time Saddam didn't start the support to his family clan.

quote:
Admittedly, though, even then I am skeptical because while the CIA did support the Baath Party coming to power back then, I have no reason to believe that given the absence of the CIA that the Baath Party wouldn't have eventually prevailed anyways. They were a fiercely determined and dedicated organization and Saddam Hussein was hell bent on rule... and would use any means necessary to achieve his goals.


that's an interesting point. I'd answer "maybe yes and maybe not" ...
It'd be worth to ask this point to a surviving member of Baath Party of 1960's.

quote:
The notion that "the USA put this big bad evil thug, Saddam Hussein, in charge of Iraq" is a load of bologna, to put it mildly.


it's an easy shortcut... But it's not 100% wrong.
Maybe the CIA didn't know what would be the consequence of its help, but then it means CIA played a bit too much with the fire.

quote:
As far as the article you linked to... It reads like a boring partisan bedtime story from an ingenuous author, Jonathan V. Marshall, whose sole intent is to mislead the naive. That, in and of itself, isn't surprising given that the Independent Institute is a Libertarian-oriented think tank.


it's "funny" (or depressive, depending of the mood) to see that right wing always says that left wing lies, and that "pro-wars" always say that "anti-wars" tell bullshits, and vice-versa...

Actually, I didn't get my info from this link. I had it for 2 medias in France, and I searched for it on Internet, to provide a link for the readers of this forum, coz I think it's more convenient for the debate : it helps to show that I don't imagine what I said... it doesn't mean what I said is the true, but at least, I hope it show I'm not completely in the moon .... and it provides information for the ones who didn't know about this point.
There another link :
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0420-05.htm
the words there are more moderate... But surely still not on the good side for u ...
Reply To this Message

Posted by: Joywiggle

quote:
Originally posted by mystic


That's right!

Maybe next time they will get up and smell the cafe au lait before doing stupid things!


You mean doing stupid things like having the audacity to disagree with the U.S. government? Oh the horror!
Reply To this Message

Posted by: ManuTOO

quote:
Originally posted by mystic
LOL!!! Just a story huh? No...don't think so!


yup, u're right.
Actually, it's maybe not just a story.
It's possible that it's a part of a full campaign managed from the White House or the Pentagon, and the journalist just published docilely the words dictated by his unquotable friend in power...

But maybe I'm going too far ..? as far as imagining France selling weapons to Irak just before a war with US thinking it'd go undiscovered..? ooooooooh no !

just a little thing like that... France and USSR ===> not same... can u believe that ..?
Reply To this Message

Posted by: mystic

quote:
Originally posted by Joywiggle


You mean doing stupid things like having the audacity to disagree with the U.S. government? Oh the horror!


I think you know that is not what I was talking about...but I appreciate the twisting of it. It gives me more of an insight to what you do.
Reply To this Message

Posted by: mystic

quote:
Originally posted by ManuTOO


yup, u're right.
Actually, it's maybe not just a story.
It's possible that it's a part of a full campaign managed from the White House or the Pentagon, and the journalist just published docilely the words dictated by his unquotable friend in power...

But maybe I'm going too far ..? as far as imagining France selling weapons to Irak just before a war with US thinking it'd go undiscovered..? ooooooooh no !

just a little thing like that... France and USSR ===&gt; not same... can u believe that ..?


I realize that since you are from France, that you are not willing to want to know the truth. I believe you accuse most of us Americans that we do the same.
Reply To this Message

Posted by: sloppy

quote:
"Put Saddam Hussein in power"...yes, that is an overstatement. Sorry about that. However, we certainly helped him rise to power, and the fact that he "might have without the help of the CIA" doesn't change that fact that we did indeed help him.


Even if the CIA's support of the coup was what made the difference of it being successful or not (and I do not really know what the CIA did exactly and to what extent) then the best you can say is:

"Saddam Hussein's career benefited from the CIA's support of the Baath Party coup in the 1960's"

To run around proclaiming "the USA put Saddam Hussein in power" or "the USA helped Saddam Hussein rise to power" is dubious and misleading at best.

Those who do run around saying that are only trying to mislead others who, more than likely, don't know any better. They're blanket statements that, in the final analysis, hold no water in the context that they are given and whos purpose is to only mislead.

As far as the links you posted, you're not telling me anything that I don't already know or am aware of. I would, however, like to point out a reality to you that you seem to be missing entirely.

That reality would be the USA's support of Iraq during the Iran/Iraq war. Something that you don't understand or are not aware of is that many nations were rallying for Iraq during the Iran/Iraq war... not just the USA, but Europe, the Soviet Union, China, etc... and virtually all of the Gulf countries. None of these countries wanted Iran to win the war, for obvious reasons, and many nations engaged in arms sales to Iraq during that period... including the Soviet Union, France, and China whos arms sales to Saddam Hussein each individually dwarfed that of the US's.

The point is, going back to the very first post of yours that I was replying to:

"Who do you think put Saddam in power in the first place and handed him weapons to keep Iran under control? Hint: It wasn't France. Another hint: 4 words, the first word starts with U and the fourth ends with A."

That question of yours, the above question, is entirely without substance.
Reply To this Message

Posted by: ManuTOO

quote:
Originally posted by mystic
I realize that since you are from France, that you are not willing to want to know the truth. I believe you accuse most of us Americans that we do the same.


when "pro-wars" say French diplomaty was oriented from economic interests, I agree it's quite possible.
when they say France helped Iraqis to escape, I emit strong doubts (especially when the article sound like basic propaganda).
when they say France sold weapons lately, I say it's bull$hit.

It's already better than the 100% deny about everything of so much "pro-wars" around, and it should give u an hint to consider that maybe this story about sold weapons is not really true... (but maybe my hope about seeing a bit in moderation in u is "irrelevant" )
Reply To this Message

Posted by: Joywiggle

quote:
Originally posted by mystic
I think you know that is not what I was talking about...but I appreciate the twisting of it. It gives me more of an insight to what you do.


What I do? You have absolutely no insight into "what I do". How am I supposed to know that wasn't what you were talking about? If that isn't what you meant then *tell me* what you meant. I have yet to see a good argument as to why Americans should boycott French products. They all come back to "they didn't support the U.S. in the U.N." - not a good enough reason for me. Convince me.
Reply To this Message

Posted by: mtliveingtree

BEING FREE ALLOWS YOU TO MAKE DECISIONS LIKE FRANCE, LETS SEE TURN HER BACK ON US, WELL PART OF FREEDOM IS THE FREEDOM OF CHOICE SO I CHOOSE TO BOYCOTT FRENCH CRAP. yOU SLAP US WELL JUST LOOKED TO ME IN THE PAST COUPLE OF MONTHS THAT FRANCE HAS BEEN SLAPPED BACK....AND I DO MEAN HARD.......SERVES THEM RIGHT..........GOT WHAT THEY GOT COMEING TO THEM FROM THERE OWN ACTIONS.........MAN THE POWER OF FREEDOM IS VERY STRONG ISNT IT FRANCE........GOD BLESS AMERICA AND HER ALLIES AND REMEBER YOUR FREEDOM DIDNT COME TO YOU WITHOUT A COST ALSO SO A SIMPLE THANKYOU WILL DO NEXT TIME YOU SEE A SOLDIER OR VET.

Reply To this Message

Posted by: Joywiggle

quote:
Even if the CIA's support of the coup was what made the difference of it being successful or not (and I do not really know what the CIA did exactly and to what extent) then the best you can say is:

"Saddam Hussein's career benefited from the CIA's support of the Baath Party coup in the 1960's"


Not if the CIA made agreements that were not just with the Baath party, but with Saddam himself. He wasn't going to the U.S. Embassy to figure out how we make hamburgers. There is an American who has retired from the CIA, who says that the CIA helped Saddam starting in Cairo - his name escapes me at the moment, I will have to try to look it up. Once Saddam was in full power in 79, he was given every possible support from the U.S. including weapons.

quote:
Those who do run around saying that are only trying to mislead others who, more than likely, don't know any better. They're blanket statements that, in the final analysis, hold no water in the context that they are given and whos purpose is to only mislead.


I'm not trying to mislead anyone, I am trying to get to the truth of the matter. That means that I dig and I read everything that I can find from the left and the right. Nothing I have read has lead me to believe that the U.S. didn't aid Saddam in his rise to power.

quote:
That reality would be the USA's support of Iraq during the Iran/Iraq war. Something that you don't understand or are not aware of is that many nations were rallying for Iraq during the Iran/Iraq war... not just the USA, but Europe, the Soviet Union, China, etc... and virtually all of the Gulf countries. None of these countries wanted Iran to win the war, for obvious reasons, and many nations engaged in arms sales to Iraq during that period... including the Soviet Union, France, and China whos arms sales to Saddam Hussein each individually dwarfed that of the US's.


Nope, I am fully aware of that. I'm not saying that Iraq wasn't given weapons from other countries. I don't think that the U.S. should be alone in shouldering the burden for creating a monster - we just shouldn't be shoving it off on all of the other countries either. BTW, isn't it interesting that we were supplying both Iran (remember Iran-Contra?) and Iraq with weapons at the same time?

quote:
That question of yours, the above question, is entirely without substance.


Well, that is your opinion and you are entitled to it.
Reply To this Message

Posted by: Joywiggle

"Boycott German cars and French cheese? Try telling that to the workers at the Mercedes-Benz assembly line in Tuscaloosa County, Ala. Or those at the Dannon Yogurt plant in Munster, Ohio, the largest of its kind in the world -- owned by Paris-based Groupe Danone. They hold some of the estimated 4.9 million American jobs that exist as a result of European direct investment in the U.S." - Joe Rossant of BusinessWeek Online

Reply To this Message

Posted by: ManuTOO

in the same register :
Evian USA belongs at 51% to Coca Cola Inc. ...

USA is going to boycott itself (at 51% )

Reply To this Message

Posted by: Americaaah

quote:
Originally posted by ManuTOO
in the same register :
Evian USA belongs at 51% to Coca Cola Inc. ...

USA is going to boycott itself (at 51% )



We'll drink Coca Cola instead of Evian. That takes care of that...

____
“War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse.”
Reply To this Message

Posted by: Americaaah

quote:
Originally posted by ManuTOO
in the same register :
Evian USA belongs at 51% to Coca Cola Inc. ...

USA is going to boycott itself (at 51% )


Yeah, we're in trouble now....

____
“War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse.”
Reply To this Message

Posted by: Joywiggle

quote:
Originally posted by Americaaah



We'll drink Coca Cola instead of Evian. That takes care of that...



How about neither? Evian has a sulfery taste that many people don't like (me included) and high fructose corn syrup is very bad for you. Coke should have stuck with good ole cane sugar, our bodies process it faster and more efficiently.
Reply To this Message

Posted by: frenchfries

quote:
Originally posted by Joywiggle
"Boycott German cars and French cheese? Try telling that to the workers at the Mercedes-Benz assembly line in Tuscaloosa County, Ala. Or those at the Dannon Yogurt plant in Munster, Ohio, the largest of its kind in the world -- owned by Paris-based Groupe Danone. They hold some of the estimated 4.9 million American jobs that exist as a result of European direct investment in the U.S." - Joe Rossant of BusinessWeek Online


I fully agree. Economical Links ties both countries, and thanks God, do not obey to patriotism propaganda.
It might be difficult for some gentlemen here to understand, but those US guys I have in my staff in Toronto are neither Americans or Canadians. They are work colleagues and none of them will be fired because of politicals issue!
Reply To this Message

Posted by: Joywiggle

quote:
Originally posted by frenchfries

It might be difficult for some gentlemen here to understand, but those US guys I have in my staff in Toronto are neither Americans or Canadians. They are work colleagues and none of them will be fired because of politicals issue!


Well, it's not difficult for me to understand...
Reply To this Message

Posted by: mystic

quote:
Originally posted by Joywiggle


What I do? You have absolutely no insight into "what I do". How am I supposed to know that wasn't what you were talking about? If that isn't what you meant then *tell me* what you meant. I have yet to see a good argument as to why Americans should boycott French products. They all come back to "they didn't support the U.S. in the U.N." - not a good enough reason for me. Convince me.


#1....I was not really directing that towards you...so I didn't expect you to now what I was talking about.

#2... I, personally, do not have to give you a good reason. It my own personal choice. I have not directed anything towards you about your decision. Its a personal thing. I never attacked your choice as you did mine.

#3...I don't want to convince you. I didn't start this thread. I just added MY OPINION. That's all it was and is. Nothing I ever said, was said directly towards you. I never spouted off personal attacks for your choice. I don't care if you buy French products or not, I don't care whether you visit there. Again, I just added my opinion. I never asked for a reply, nor did I expect one. It was a statement. If you would have asked me what I was talking about...we could have discussed it. It was you that chose to make judgement calls, not I.

I have nothing against you, I don't know what ever made you feel that way towards me. You havent even been on this forum long enough to know who I am.
Reply To this Message

Posted by: sloppy

Joywiggle,

Earlier, in response to your accusation that "the USA put Saddam Hussein in Power", an accusation that you later revised to "the USA helped Saddam Hussein get in power", I had told you, in summary, that the best you can say is:

"Saddam Hussein's career benefited from the CIA's support of the Baath Party coup in the 1960's"

You then replied with this:

quote:
Not if the CIA made agreements that were not just with the Baath party, but with Saddam himself. He wasn't going to the U.S. Embassy to figure out how we make hamburgers. There is an American who has retired from the CIA, who says that the CIA helped Saddam starting in Cairo - his name escapes me at the moment, I will have to try to look it up. Once Saddam was in full power in 79, he was given every possible support from the U.S. including weapons.


You are drawing false conclusions again. False conclusions that are based on incomplete facts.

It is no secret that Saddam Hussein, at the time a low-level member of the Baath Party, was visiting the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, Egypt. What you left out was that there were several Baath Party members who visited the U.S. Embassy. You also left out what those visits were about : The overthrow of General Qassim by the Baath Party.

This leads us back to the same thing. The best anyone can say is:

"Saddam Hussein's career benefited from the CIA's support of the Baath Party coup in the 1960's"



quote:
Nope, I am fully aware of that. I'm not saying that Iraq wasn't given weapons from other countries. I don't think that the U.S. should be alone in shouldering the burden for creating a monster - we just shouldn't be shoving it off on all of the other countries either.


I see. You are fully aware of that. You say that you are fully aware of the world wide support that Iraq had during the Iran/Iraq war. You say that you are fully aware of other countries providing military support to Iraq, in addition to the USA. You say that you are fully aware that several countries provided far more military aid to Iraq than even the US did. You sum it up by saying that 'we shouldn't just be shoving it off on all of the other countries either'

Earlier, you were 'shoving' it all on the USA.

I don't get it. What is there to shove?



quote:
BTW, isn't it interesting that we were supplying both Iran (remember Iran-Contra?) and Iraq with weapons at the same time?


On the surface it may seem contradictory. Beyond that, no. The support for Iraq by the US, like many other countries who supported Iraq, was very much official. The Iran/Contra scandal was an illegal operation that essentially tried working an arms-for-hostages deal with Iran, whilst using the proceeds from such sales to aid the Contra rebels in their fight against the Cuban-backed Sandinista's in Nicaragua.



quote:
I'm not trying to mislead anyone, I am trying to get to the truth of the matter. That means that I dig and I read everything that I can find from the left and the right. Nothing I have read has lead me to believe that the U.S. didn't aid Saddam in his rise to power.


If you're not trying to mislead then you are doing quite a good job of it, irregardless, since most of your comments I have read so far are just that... misleading.
Reply To this Message

Posted by: Joywiggle

quote:

I have nothing against you, I don't know what ever made you feel that way towards me. You havent even been on this forum long enough to know who I am.


I don't feel anything against you. You obviously feel that I attacked you, but it certainly wasn't intended in that way.
Reply To this Message

Posted by: Joywiggle

quote:
Originally posted by sloppy
This leads us back to the same thing. The best anyone can say is:

"Saddam Hussein's career benefited from the CIA's support of the Baath Party coup in the 1960's"


You can pander around all that you want, but I'm not buying it and neither are lots of other people (I have a lot more links if you want, but they all say the same thing.):

quote:
From http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/SAN210A.html
The relationship between the CIA and Saddam Hussein is a long one. In 1963, the Americans plotted with the Ba'ath against Abdel Karim Kassem, a man who, in the words of the writer Said Aburish, "retains more of the affection of the Iraqi people than any leader this century." The CIA supplied lists for the Ba'ath to kill leftists and communists, and Washington flew arms to Kirkuk to use against the Kurds.

In Aburish's biography of the Iraqi leader, the author quotes many anti-Saddam Iraqis including Ahmad Chalabi, leader of the INC on CIA cooperation with the second Ba'ath coup in 1968. Later, in the 1980s, the United States and Britain helped arm Saddam in his confrontation with Iran only to turn against him over the 1990 Kuwait crisis. When in 1991 the Iraqi people rose against Saddam, the United States was fearful that change would put its majority Shi'ites and thus Iran in power, and US forces stood by as the Republican Guard crushed the rebellion. The CIA then worked on sponsoring a coup in Baghdad, a strategy that crumbled in 1996 when Iraqi intelligence infiltrated a conspiracy led by the ex-Ba'athist Iyad Alawi. Having rounded up hundreds of officers, the mukhabarat sent a message to the CIA team in Amman: "We have arrested all your people. You might as well pack up and go home."

The CIA's half-hearted support for the INC also ended in 1996, when Saddam exploited Kurdish in-fighting to crush an INC presence in the Kurdish-controlled zone in the north. As Iraqi tanks moved in, the CIA fled and left the INC people to their fate. Washington washed its hands of the affair, and Chalabi noted that CIA officials "are not known for their veracity."


quote:
Originally posted by sloppy
Earlier, you were 'shoving' it all on the USA.


It is obvious that when someone apologizes and says that they worded something incorrectly, you aren't willing to accept that. You've never made mistakes, right? Somehow, I am finding that hard to believe.

quote:
Originally posted by sloppy I don't get it. What is there to shove?


Responsibility and, well, revenge it would seem. We are bound and determined not to let the French have their oil contract because they disagree with us. That was what this whole argument stemmed from. Sure, they might have economic reasons for not wanting this war, but are we honestly going to claim that we don't have economic reasons for being in this war to begin with?

quote:
Originally posted by sloppy
On the surface it may seem contradictory. Beyond that, no. The support for Iraq by the US, like many other countries who supported Iraq, was very much official. The Iran/Contra scandal was an illegal operation that essentially tried working an arms-for-hostages deal with Iran, whilst using the proceeds from such sales to aid the Contra rebels in their fight against the Cuban-backed Sandinista's in Nicaragua.


No, it wasn't official...and Reagan "couldn't remember" when confronted with documented proof 30 minutes after he declared "no way is that true". Not only was it not official, it was illegal. Are you telling me that we weren't intentionally playing the two governments against each other? That the left hand didn't know what the right hand was doing? I don't buy it.
Reply To this Message

Posted by: sloppy

Joywiggle,

Originally you had said:

"Who do you think put Saddam in power in the first place and handed him weapons to keep Iran under control? Hint: It wasn't France. Another hint: 4 words, the first word starts with U and the fourth ends with A."

As far as "the USA putting Saddam in power" you later recanted saying "the USA helped put Saddam in power". I told you that is misleading and the best you can say is "Saddam Hussein's career benefited from the CIA's support of the Baath Party coup in the 1960's"

Your latest reply to that is:

quote:
You can pander around all that you want, but I'm not buying it and neither are lots of other people (I have a lot more links if you want, but they all say the same thing.):


Several things here...

About the text you quoted from the link... What were you trying to show? I don't see anything that suggests that the CIA's support back then extended beyond that of the Baath Party.

In regards to the link itself... Is that the kind of garbage you rely on to fuel your beliefs? A run-of-the-mill web page designed from the get-go to bash the US?

When talking about the coup of 1963, the overthrow of Qassim by the Baath Party, the author fails to mention that, in 1958 Qassim committed a coup against King Faisal II in what was a bloody massacre.

The author makes no reference to the fact that the period between the late 50's and early 60's was the height of the Cold War. He makes absolutely no mention of the KGB, as if they were all just hanging around their dacha's, watering their cabbage gardens. Speaking of the KGB, when he speaks of the Kurds... he fails to mention who was supporting them... the KGB.

In addition to the authors weak knowledge of history, his practice of 'mislead by ommission' is obvious.

He refers to the assassination attempt of Qassim in 1959 as a solo attempt by Saddam Hussein. That is not true. Saddam Hussein was one of several people involved in that attempt.

When he refers to the coup in 1963 against Qassim he refers to the Baath Party as 'Saddam's Baath Party'. That isn't true either. The Baath Party was neither created by Saddam Hussein nor, at the time, was Saddam even a high-level member.

The author also erroneously states that after the 1963 coup Saddam became head of the secret service. That isn't true either. Saddam became an interrogator. Ten months later... the Baath Party was over-run by the military. It wasn't until the 1968 Baath Party coup that Saddam was in charge of the secret service.

There is also reference to the US/UK supporting Iraq during the Iran/Iraq war... they conveniently leave out everyone else... so they can gear the reader into thinking that the US/UK 'betrayed' Iraq in the 1st Gulf War.

I could go on and on, that article is a joke meant for one thing only: To bash the US and fuel anti-US sentiment. The Centre for Research on Globalisation should be rename tod The Centre for Research on Deception.


Ealier, when you had said:

"Who do you think put Saddam in power in the first place and handed him weapons to keep Iran under control? Hint: It wasn't France. Another hint: 4 words, the first word starts with U and the fourth ends with A."

...and I had told you about the support Iraq had from many countries during the Iran/Iraq war... that the Soviet Union, France, and China had sold even more arms to Iraq than the US.... you later said that you were already aware of that.

My question is, if you were already aware of it, then why did you say above "It wasn't France" in your empty, baseless, and unfounded bash against the US?
Reply To this Message

Posted by: mtliveingtree

TALK YOU GARBAGE ALL YOU WANT BUT THE BOYCOTT OF FRENCH PRODUCTS HAS ALL READY HURT THE ECONIMY OF FRANCE AND WILL GET WORSE BEFORE IT GETS BETTER. NEXT TIME YOU WANNA SCREW SOMEONE FRANCE YA BETTER THINK TWICE. JUST A THANKYOU WILL DO

Reply To this Message

Posted by: Edward Teach

You sleep in the bed you make.

Reply To this Message

Posted by: Dreamzwalker

I like French bread - i will eat French bread - i like French fries - i eat French fries. A difference of opinions does not stop me from liking something with a name in it - or the place it is from.

Reply To this Message

Posted by: rowdyrjp

quote:
Originally posted by mtliveingtree
TALK YOU GARBAGE ALL YOU WANT BUT THE BOYCOTT OF FRENCH PRODUCTS HAS ALL READY HURT THE ECONIMY OF FRANCE AND WILL GET WORSE BEFORE IT GETS BETTER. NEXT TIME YOU WANNA SCREW SOMEONE FRANCE YA BETTER THINK TWICE. JUST A THANKYOU WILL DO



Ah so in exercising their rights within the UN charter to debate important issues {like war} and reaching a different conclusion then the US... makes them worthy of scorn, ridicule, hate and sanctions? What kind of world do you live in? Does fascism sound good to you?

The whole point of all these nations participating in the UN is to find a way to work together and compromise to achieve a better standard of living for all nations of the world. To ensure catastrophes like WWII never happen again. To show countries ways to coexist that do not involve warfare.Do not spit bile at what you disagree with. It is the last resort of those who cannot argue intelligently.
Reply To this Message

Posted by: Americaaah

quote:
Originally posted by rowdyrjp



Ah so in exercising their rights within the UN charter to debate important issues {like war} and reaching a different conclusion then the US... makes them worthy of scorn, ridicule, hate and sanctions? What kind of world do you live in? Does fascism sound good to you?


France's agenda goes well beyond its sweetheart deals with Saddam—France has (or had) delusions of being the 'giant killers.' To undermine and trip up the U.S. as the new leading power in Europe with designs on counterbalancing (along with Germany) and thwarting U.S. influence no matter what the situation. No country in history has EVER done this blatant thing to an 'ally.' Now France is receiving the just fruits of its endeavor.



____
'Ship the UN Headquarters to an island some place. We don't need the spies and fair weather friends here.'
Reply To this Message

Posted by: mtliveingtree

no rowdyrjp but buying oil and selling restricted arms to iraq does. Helping iraqii officals escape dureing war does. Selling weapons to dellibertly counter us weapons does. You wanna make shady deals thats one thing. all countries do but to do it to hurt one of your allies is totally differnt. Think about it. Also giveing iraqiis info on us movement and defense capabilitities and putting our soldiers in danger deffently pisses me off and alot of other americans also. Some maybe not but the majority yes, your feeling the cramp now, you tell me.

Reply To this Message

Posted by: nowar

quote:
Originally posted by mtliveingtree
no rowdyrjp but buying oil and selling restricted arms to iraq does. Helping iraqii officals escape dureing war does. Selling weapons to dellibertly counter us weapons does. You wanna make shady deals thats one thing. all countries do but to do it to hurt one of your allies is totally differnt. Think about it. Also giveing iraqiis info on us movement and defense capabilitities and putting our soldiers in danger deffently pisses me off and alot of other americans also. Some maybe not but the majority yes, your feeling the cramp now, you tell me.


you are so stupid mtliveingtree that you didn't read or saw the disproofs of these proposition and the explanation of the discussion between the French ambassador and an Iraqi offical .....


you are so upset they used their veto right at UNSC that everything which will be said - without proof - will be your thruth.


JUST A THANK YOU WILL DO ......
Reply To this Message

Posted by: rowdyrjp

quote:
Originally posted by mtliveingtree
no rowdyrjp but buying oil and selling restricted arms to iraq does. Helping iraqii officals escape dureing war does. Selling weapons to dellibertly counter us weapons does. You wanna make shady deals thats one thing. all countries do but to do it to hurt one of your allies is totally differnt. Think about it. Also giveing iraqiis info on us movement and defense capabilitities and putting our soldiers in danger deffently pisses me off and alot of other americans also. Some maybe not but the majority yes, your feeling the cramp now, you tell me.



What cramp? Bush cancelling a vist here? OOOHHH now we realise how wrong we were to act idependent as Canadians and we should have just pretended we were unofficial states in your union. Please US and Canada have had disputes before this I am not too worried about it.
Reply To this Message

Posted by: flapbreaker

quote:
Originally posted by Joywiggle


What I do? You have absolutely no insight into "what I do". How am I supposed to know that wasn't what you were talking about? If that isn't what you meant then *tell me* what you meant. I have yet to see a good argument as to why Americans should boycott French products. They all come back to "they didn't support the U.S. in the U.N." - not a good enough reason for me. Convince me.


Ok, I know that I can't convince you but here is my take on it. I don't think that people are upset that France opposed the U.S. it was how they opposed the U.S. given the history of the two countries. It appeared that France was going to road block anything related to war no matter what and the real purpose of Chirac's stans was to inflate his popularity within France. Considering that many U.S. service men died saving France from the Nazi's it just comes out looking bad on France's part. I am not saying that the anti-France side is right or wrong but I think these are some of the reasons for the emotions and not just that someone, god forbid, opposed us.
Reply To this Message

Posted by: Americaaah

quote:
Originally posted by flapbreaker


Ok, I know that I can't convince you but here is my take on it. I don't think that people are upset that France opposed the U.S. it was how they opposed the U.S. given the history of the two countries. It appeared that France was going to road block anything related to war no matter what and the real purpose of Chirac's stans was to inflate his popularity within France. Considering that many U.S. service men died saving France from the Nazi's it just comes out looking bad on France's part. I am not saying that the anti-France side is right or wrong but I think these are some of the reasons for the emotions and not just that someone, god forbid, opposed us.



France's agenda goes well beyond its sweetheart deals with Saddam and has only partly to do with this war. Since the end of the cold war France has had delusions of being the 'giant killers.' That is, to undermine and trip up the U.S. and look at itself as the newly risen leading power in Europe with designs on counterbalancing and thwarting (along with Germany) U.S. economic and political dominance—regardless of the situation. France actually sent representatives to U.N. nations in order to lobby those nations to oppose the U.S. No country in history has EVER betrayed with such blatancy a longtime 'ally.'

____
1 in 5 Americans are boycotting French goods.
This year alone France expects to lose $500 million in American tourist dollars.


____
“War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse.”
Reply To this Message

Posted by: Dreamzwalker

I had French Fries with Lunch

Reply To this Message

Posted by: Americaaah

quote:
Originally posted by Dreamzwalker
I had French Fries with Lunch


You mean Freedom Fries...



____
1 in 5 Americans are boycotting French goods.
This year alone France expects to lose $500 million in American tourist dollars.
Reply To this Message

Posted by: rowdyrjp

quote:
Originally posted by Americaaah


You mean Freedom Fries...



____
1 in 5 Americans are boycotting French goods.
This year alone France expects to lose $500 million in American tourist dollars.



still delusional I see.....

Reply To this Message