March 03, 2003
BS alert

From CNN, we have this article, with the headline:

French official: No anti-Americanism in France

The official in question is Dominique de Villepin, the French foreign minister. M. de Villepin is the lovely gentleman who used a press conference with Colin Powell as a platform to attack American foreign policy.

Some of M. de Villepin's compatriots in the French government have derided Bush as a "moron", "cowboy" or worse, and France is the home of the anti-American culture crowd. 400,000 people showed up to demonstrate against the war in Paris, and a significant number of them carried signs that directly attacked the US. There is no way that you can convince me that there is no anti-Americanism in France, and de Villepin's blithe dismissal of facts is infuriating.

UPDATE: The comments thread on this post over at Daily Pundit seem to point to a conclusion that differs from my own. Ralf Goergens, who is German (and generally rather sensible) says that he has seen little anti-Americanism in the protests in Germany, just a dislike of the current foreign policy we are pursuing. I do not concur, but I suspect there is room for us to disagree on this issue. I think the tenor of the protests in Germany and those in France is different, as well, which might be the root of our differing opinions.

posted on March 03, 2003 02:37 AM


Dear Horologium, I was watching the NBC coverage of the United Nations address of the security council, and was very impressed with Foreign French Minister Dominique Villepin. I agree onehundred percent with his ideas and philosophy concerning Irac. Please understand that most Americans do not agree with Bush or even voted for the tyrant. I really do not know which is worse, Bush or Saddam. As you know or don't, Al Gore won the popular vote, which the Florida Supreme Court stopped at 500,000, because they believed riots would take place if the true numbers came in. Like I was saying, most Americans believe in diplomacy and war should be a last resort. Bush has not come close to the last resort, infact he has gone out of his way to push for war. But I believe it goes far deeper than this. Bush is not running the country but his father and old boys who worked for him. This is all about oil, and so is the Bush administration. Afganistan was about minerals as well. It's about power and money. What this administration did not realize was that the rest of the world would not stand idoly by while "Dubya" and his cronies tried to take control of the world's oil reserves. But now they have started something, an unbalancing of power, so to speak, that might be too late to avert war on a large world wide order. Right now North Korea is treating if US plans to attack Irac, they will retaliate with either an atomic bomb or troops or both. In any event we cannot fight two fronts, and I don't even think we could win a conventional fight with North Korea. In short, we better disarm ourselves out of Irac's way and make peace and diplomacy our friend as our last great president did, Clinton.
If you have access to the French Foreign Minister Mr. Villepin, I would very much like to email him. Thankyou for your time.

John Saikaly

posted by John Saikaly on March 7, 2003 09:38 PM

No, Mr. Saikaly, I do not have access to Mr. de Villepin. I am an American citizen, currently living in the US.

Your views don't track closely with mine at all, which a quick look through my archives would have confirmed. I don't buy the "it's all about oil" trope, nor do I buy into "The Supreme Court selected Bush as president" delusion. Gore won the popular vote, it is true, but that is not how we elect the president in the United States. If you dislike the concept of the Electoral College, contact your congressional representatives about introducing an amendment to change the constitution.

The idea that we could not win a war (conventional or otherwise) against North Korea is absurd. Do you have any idea of what you just said? And "disarming" ourselves out of Iraq's way is precisely what led to N. Korea developing nuclear weapons, despite their signature on the NPT and their agreement with the US to stop development in exchange for money and food. Because they saw that Clinton was unwilling to back up the provisions of the deal, they had no qualms about violating it. Now look what has happened. Bush will not let it happen with another country, one that has demonstrated no remorse about killing civilians, within their country and outside its borders.

posted by Timekeeper on March 8, 2003 12:38 AM

Post a comment

Email Address:



Remember your info?

Back to Horologium