http://www.thescotsman.co.uk/index.cfm?id=440022003

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,84523,00.html

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...us_030414191050

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...r_the_boycott_2

You may scoff at the freedom fries... but the frechies have felt it in their economy. They will very soon surrender.

But Philly, what about Europe's own boycott of US products and companies. This "tit for tat" is hurting us too. (never cared too much for tit anyway.)

Ung, who's pocketbook does it hurt more?

This is all just incredibly infantile. Are we being led by a cabal of preschoolers here?

I'm starting to see reports from the BBC (as reported by the blogs) that stolen Iraqi antiquities (as looted from the Iraqi museum by museum insiders) already are turning up for sale in ... ohmigosh this is a shocker ... Paris, France!

Sacre bleu.

I'll post a link as soon as I find one that'll take you right to the story.

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20030418-7322754.htm

We should keep Frenchie products out of the mix if folks are pissed at France... according to them.

Well, I've listened to a good deal of this Francophobia now for several weeks, along with an increasing amount of reportage over the last several days about the "punishment" being meted out to various celebrities in response to their opposition to the war. Having supported the war myself, I must say that I find this vindictiveness somewhat dispiriting.

I've been to France several times and always have been treated with great kindness and respect by the French people. I certainly have no intention of attempting to punish them economically as a way of delivering a message to the Chirac government. I think this damages our own image as a magnanimous and freedom loving people. If a message needs to be delivered to President Chirac, then let George Bush do it. That's what I'm paying him to do.

The French, in fact the people of all of Europe, didn't think the war was a good idea. They are certainly entitled to their opinion. I didn't agree with them, but I can see that they had some very valid arguments and concerns. War is, after all, to be avoided when possible. In the end we had our war, won it handily and now enjoy the upper hand in post-war affairs. I don't think we should punish our friends for speaking their mind or we'll soon have none. I don't see why we should expect others to vote for war in the Security Council if they don't believe it's the right thing to do.

It is good to remember that France is our oldest ally. They assisted us in making revolution not just with the force of arms but with the force of their great thinkers, and philosophers. The American Revolution was not created out thin air on some Virginia plantation. Some Americans like to think that freedom and democracy were created out of some indigenous whole cloth in a vucuum of thought and ideas. This revisionist history is simply false. More recently we have been allies through all the great challenges of the twentieth century, the First, Second and Cold wars. Perhaps most importantly the French have been our economic partners in trade for hundreds of years. They may not always have been the willingly complacent yes-men that some would seem to prefer but I soon tire of friends who never have a point of their own. I'm over it.

The cheering people of Iraq who greeted us upon our arrival seem quickly to be fading into the background as the populous grows increasingly restive under the perceived yoke of American occupation. Like it or not we will soon need the assistance of friends in the rebuilding effort which will be far more challenging than the rapid and easy conquest proved to be. The sooner we can involve others in the effort the better - for us.

As to the celebrity backlash, everyone seems to agree that in this free country we all have the right, high and low, to speak our mind. The usual rejoinder points out that we also have the right to not spend our money on the books, movies, music and other works of those with whom we disagree. True enough, but we all have rights that we don't necessarily choose to exercise in full at all times. What's the point of allowing people freedom of thought and expression if one is going to punish those who express ideas we dislike? What can be the point of this economic retribution if not to discourage the free expression of ideas? Shut-up, Susan Sarandon, or I'm not going to your movies anymore! Can we really claim to support freedom and democracy while we endeavor to coerce others into silence? If you disagree, then voice your opinion. That's what a free republic is about. If you won't be able to enjoy the Dixie Chicks next release, then don't buy it but organizing a campaign to persuade others to join in some economic boycott seems unnecesarily vindictive. To vilify people because they disagree with a point of view is highly un-American and not consistent with a real love of freedom, democracy and representative government. Democracy is not possible without tolerance. Our history is replete with exercises in intolerance. None have served this country well.

The entertainers job is to entertain. They make their money from people who wish to see this, NOT their political views. If they wish to spout out against what 75% of america thinks is right, well then 75% of america, or whoever chooses, has the right to use their "freedom" NOT to put money in their pockets. Express your views, we express ours by not seeing you movie. They are both freedoms we enjoy. If Tim Robbins feels so strongly, he should find different work at the nearest Circle K, he can spout off as much as he likes....

Good point about history, Torgauer.

Besides, what's a "French product" anyway? Fries originated in Belgium, French's mustard is from the U.K. The S.C. Legislature backed off the boycott when they found out Michelin made tires in their state. Likewise, Europeans who boycott McD's only hurt the local franchise owner, not the parent firm, and the "Islamic" cola sold in the Middle East an alternative to Coke is actually(gasp!) British. Global trade makes every big corporation a global company, regardless of where the HQ is. There is no "domestic" anymore.

If boycotts worked, Jerry Falwell (who's been suspiciously quiet lately, and I mean that literally) would have driven Disney into bankruptcy by now.

I read all of the linked articles, but I can't see how one could jump to the conclusion that all this nonsense is seriously hurting their economy & that such a squeeze will cause them to "surrender". Besides, France is a high-tech economy, & wine & cheese are only a small component of its exports. <<Si l'on veut bouder tous les produits francais>> . . . for me it would be necessary to remove several of the parts from the motor from my pick-up truck & to buy 4 new tires for it, to remove many of the components of my mountain bike, & to throw away half of the gadgets in my kitchen. While we're at it, let's boycott Canada & Mexico & Chile too--they all refused to support Bush's little adventure--might as well kick 'em out of NAFTA too. While we're at it we can boycott Germany & Russia & China too.
Gee, weren't we always told that it was the lefties who verged on silliness with all these boycotts over homophobia, sexism, slave labor, union-busting, pollution-spewing, animal testing, etc., etc., etc.?

[ April 18, 2003, 07:51 PM: Message edited by: BillyBones ]

Torgauer, we disagree on the war, but agree on this anti-French feeling, which has reached a hysterical pitch. In a breakdown of various weaponry, etc., sold to Iraq before the war, it turns out that France was quite far down the list compared with Belgium, Luxembourg, Spain--yes, Spain, our ally which sent almost no troops and whose people remain staunchly against the unfinished war (it is NOT yet over), China, Russia, Germany, etc. France is a convenient target, but it is our oldest ally, and assisted us as well during the Civil War. French troops continue to serve alongside Americans in Afghanistan and Bosnia, and may at some point be sent to Iraq, where the people are protesting more openly about our presence there.

One thing you should keep in mind, though, is that the anti-French tirade has been run OUT OF THE WHITE HOUSE and the House of Representatives. This did not begin as a popular campaign against the French, but as a carefully orchestrated, spiteful attack against a longstanding ally. France's economy is high tech, its economy is quite intertwined with our own, and much of this anti-French behavior will eventually spite us if we keep it up. It's also telling that Germany, a nation we have had to defeat TWICE--as opposed to France--in the 20th century, which caused so much destruction and death, and which rather triumphantly announced that under no circumstances would it participate in or sanction this war, has NOT been villifed to the same degree. Germany's ministers in fact insulted our president openly, which is something the French have not done--though they certainly would have cause to. But still, we have not treated Germany with the same disdain. It is something to consider, and I think it goes beyond the fact that France has a Security Council seat and Germany does not.

What's the basis for your assertion that France is "quite far down the list" of countries selling weaponry to Iraq? The information I have is that France ranked #2, behind only Russia, in total arms sales to Iraq, 1973-1990. From the invaluable command-post.org, here's the chart setting forth the arms sales to Iraq/Saddam, by country: Iraq Imports Weapons 1973-1990

Notice how WAY far down the list is the U.S. Y'know, the people who supposedly created and armed Saddam Hussein? Ranked #11, at 1%, behind such well-known arsenals as Denmark (#9) and Brazil (#7). France? That naive innocent you refer to so lovingly. #2. At 13%.

Why do these numbers, based on data compiled by the "Stockholm International Peace Research Institute" (don't know them, sounds impressive to me), is that with the embargo and sanctions on Iraq after its invasion of Kuwait, all arms sales after that date would have been illegal (and since it would've been against international law, unreported).

Spain, the Germanys (East and West)? Far down the list. Belgium? Not even on the charts.

The bulk of the Russian sales would have been from the now-defunct Soviet Union. So this may explain to you: Why France? Because they were Saddam's arsenal in the free world. You can't say Chirac without I-R-A-Q.

If you have contrary data, please share. I'm interested in any evidence you have that France has been framed.

[ April 19, 2003, 10:39 AM: Message edited by: Charlie in the Trees ]

It seems to me it matters very little where one falls on the list of Iraqi arms vendors. Either you were willing to sellout for a buck of you weren't. If we didn't manage to sell as much as some others I'm sure it wasn't for lack of trying. The Iraqi regime may simply have prefered to buy elsewhere. There are no part-time whores. A whore is a whore. Bragging rights really belong to those who didn't sell to this tyranical regime.

Iraq has been charged with possessing weapons of mass destruction ("14,000," "500 tons of sarin," etc.), not just conventional arms. The following corporations--many of which are in the US--are the suppliers. France, as you'll see, has far fewer companies listed than the U.S. The "Iraq-Chirac" rhyme is clever, but doesn't get at the truth of the international--and illegal--supply of chemicals, biological resources, and weapons to Iraq.

Corporate Suppliers for Iraq's Weapons Programs

Some of the ones listed:

A = Nuclear program
B = Bioweapons program
C = Chemical weapons program
R = Rocket program
K = Conventional weapons, military logistics,
supplies at the Iraqi Defense Ministry and the building of military plants


------------------------------------------------------------------------


United States of America
1. Honeywell (R, K)
2. Spectra Physics (K)
3. Semetex ®
4. TI Coating (A, K)
5. Unisys (A, K)
6. Sperry Corp. (R, K)
7. Tektronix (R, A)
8. Rockwell (K)
9. Leybold Vacuum Systems (A)
10. Finnigan-MAT-US (A)
11. Hewlett-Packard (A, R, K)
12. Dupont (A)
13. Eastman Kodak ®
14. American Type Culture Collection (
15. Alcolac International ©
16. Consarc (A)
17. Carl Zeiss - U.S (K)
18. Cerberus (LTD) (A)
19. Electronic Associates ®
20. International Computer Systems (A, R, K)
21. Bechtel (K)
22. EZ Logic Data Systems, Inc. ®
23. Canberra Industries Inc. (A)
24. Axel Electronics Inc. (A)


In addition to these twenty four companies with their headquarters in the USA fifty foreign enterprises are mentioned which cooperated with Iraq through their subsiduaries in the US. Also named as suppliers for Iraq's arms programs (A, B, C & R) are the US Departments of Defense, Energy, Trade and Agriculture as well as Lawrence Livermore, Los Alamos and Sandia National atomic weapons laboratories.

------------------------------------------------------------------------


Britain
1. Euromac Ltd - UK (A)
2. C. Plath - Nuclear (A)
3. Endshire Export Marketing (A)
4. International Computer Systems (A, R, K)
5. MEED International (A, C)
6. Walter Somers Ltd. ®
7. International Computer Limited (A, K)
8. Matrix Churchill Corp. (A)
9. Ali Ashour Daghir (A)

10. International Military Services
(controlled by the British Ministry of Defence) ®
11. Sheffield Forgemasters ®
12. Technology Development Group ®
13. International Signal and Control ®
14. Terex Corporation ®
15. Inwako (A)
16. TMG Engineering (K)
17. XYY Options, Inc (A)


------------------------------------------------------------------------


France
1. Commissariat a lEnergie Atomique (A)
2. Sciaky (A)
3. Thomson CSF (A, K)
4. Aerospatiale and Matra Espace ®
5. Cerbag (A)
6. Protec SA ©
7. Thales Group (A)
8. Societé Général pour les Techniques Nouvelles (A)


------------------------------------------------------------------------


USSR / Russia
1. Soviet State Missile Co. ®
2. Niikhism ®
3. Mars Rotor ®
4. Livinvest ®
5. Russia Aviatin Trading House (K)
6. Amsar Trading (K)


------------------------------------------------------------------------


China
1. China Wanbao Engineering Company (A, C, K)
2. Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd (K)
3. China State Missile Company ®


------------------------------------------------------------------------


Other Countries
* Japan:  Fanuc (A), Hammamatsu Photonics KK (A), NEC (A), Osaka (A), Waida (A)
* Netherlands:  Melchemie B.V. ©, KBS Holland B.V. ©, Delft Instruments N.V. (K)
* Belgium:  Boehler Edelstahl (A), NU Kraft Mercantile Corporation ©, OIP Instrubel (K), Phillips Petroleum ©, Poudries Réunies Belge SA ®, Sebatra (A), Space Research Corp. ®
* Spain:  Donabat ®, Treblam ©, Zayer (A)
* Sweden:  ABB (A), Saab-Scania ®

See this thread that Twin58 started also, from Jane's, about Germany's central importance, along with the U.S.'s and Britain's. France is being demonized for political gain; it's not the only one to blame.

The Jane's report referenced in that thread has no dates. So how stale is it? Well, it's based on a report from "Republican Congressman Donald Riegle" that was published in May 1994. Sounds current? No. Don Reigle was a DEMOCRATIC SENATOR from Michigan from 1976 to, I believe, 1994. He was a REPUBLICAN congressman from 1967 to 1973. Switched parties around Watergate (don't know if that was the reason) and became a Dem then. The fact that the report was "released" in 1994 bears no relationship to its authorship.

So, if I understand, you're basing your theory that the Germans were more complicit than the French in the arming of Saddam based on data compiled somewhere between 1967 and 1973, during either the Nixon, or maybe even Johnson, administation. I'm basing my opinion on France on more current data. (As is most of the U.S. public.) In other words, France is not being unfairly demonized. They're being demonized because they are a demon.

Let's look at 2003, please. French arms sales. France's TotalElfFina's involvement in the Iraqi oil fields. French sabotage of holding Saddam accountable for violating U.N. resolutions (voting only for what it perceived to be toothless sanctions).

Germany's been no angel. But they cooperated somewhat with the war effort (e.g., we seemed to have had the blueprints for those German-built Saddam bunkers). Gerhard Schroeder and Joska Fischer seem to be expressing some remorse (or at least regret), in complete contrast to chIRAQ and de Villepans (spellcheck please).

France is no friend of the U.S. anymore.

His posting is just a list of companies. What is the data involved? A US company could supply say, a pencil to the program and they are on the list. France could have one company supply say 100,000 missles and they are on the list. It doesnt say how much was supplied and what exactly was supplied.

The United States is a much bigger country than france isnt it? We have a stronger economy and more corportations. It would be quite easy to have more companies listed but have supplied much less to Iraq.

As they say.... there are facts and there are statistics.

The company i work for has about 1,000 customers, however we have about 10 that are major suppliers. 1,000 would be on the list, only 10 would anyone truely care about.