Informal boycott of French products taking hold...

[KrazyHorse]

To the new Iraqi government. Where else?

Duh.

[Spiffor]

dv8ed :
I'm not saying the interests of France in Iraq were moralistic. Just like the interests of the US in Iraq weren't moralistic either.

Please don't throw me the line "We went there to oust Saddam" : Both countries have made propaganda effort to explain they were on the moralistic high ground : you country obviously was motivated by the sole motivation of freeign the Iraqis And my country obviously was solely motivated by the salvation of peace and UN predominance

I'm just saying you cannot expect from a country to collaborate when your behaviour is a kick in the nads of this country's interests. I'm sure the US wouldn't be glad if a powerful country helped Cuba to remain socialist after Castro's death. And such a discontent would be normal, because this country's behaviour would completely go against US interests in the area.

[Spiffor]

Frogger :
Care to give details on how you hadn't any satisfactory freedom of speech ?

[KrazyHorse]

Sign laws in Quebec. Freedom of speech means freedom of choice of language.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Please don't throw me the line "We went there to oust Saddam"

I would pass on this, because it's mostly right, except for one thing. I honestly believe Dubya went there for moral reasons. The rest of the American government, doubtful, but I think Dubya is just stupid enough and just ernest enough to have actually believed that line when he said it.

I'm just saying you cannot expect from a country to collaborate when your behaviour is a kick in the nads of this country's interests. I'm sure the US wouldn't be glad if a powerful country helped Cuba to remain socialist after Castro's death. And such a discontent would be normal, because this country's behaviour would completely go against US interests in the area.

So why is a boycott bad then? If you were acting against our interests, why should we collaborate with your economy?

And don't say that it was the government, not the economy, because the two tend to be related.

[Spiffor]

In Québec, signs must be in French ? I thought they had to be at least in French, but were allowed to be in another language as well.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by dv8ed
And don't say that it was the government, not the economy, because the two tend to be related.

French and American business organizations both openly worried about the degradation of the relationship between the two countries, and both warned about the dangers of a boycott.
The economy won't profit from it.

Edit :

So why is a boycott bad then? If you were acting against our interests, why should we collaborate with your economy?

Countries go into each other's interests all the time. In Europe, the real bastion of international cooperation, the council of ministers is a huge haggling table where pretty much everybody disagrees. Yet we don't punish the Brits because they didn't collaborate with France on our research of more agricultural subsidies. Yet the Spaniards won't boycott the Poles even if they'll lose much of their European infrastructure money. Etc.
Punishing a country because it defended its interests, especially when yours took the initiative of ruining them, is completely stupid. It is exactly the kind of eye for an eye that leaves the whole world blind.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Oh, it certainly won't. But I thought the point was to kick the other guy in the nads.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Spiffor
In Québec, signs must be in French ? I thought they had to be at least in French, but were allowed to be in another language as well.

Now they are. But French must be "more prominent". For ~5 years only unilingual French signs were allowed.

Neither law is acceptable. If somebody wants to put a sign up that's only in English, or Swahili, or Mandarin they should have the right.



I hate to tell you this, but the way to preserve french culture isn't through unconstitutional and repressive laws. And even if it were the only way to do so, it still wouldn't be acceptable. Victimising minority groups by stifling their freedom of expression is repugnant.

The English in Quebec haven't run things for 30 years, but the paranoia still hasn't left the halls of the NA in Quebec city, and it rears its ugly head on every visit to the ballot box.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by dv8ed
Oh, it certainly won't. But I thought the point was to kick the other guy in the nads.

The scene : US kicks France in the nads by threatening its client Saddam
France : 'Ouch, you kick me in the nads ! Take that !"
France kicks the US in the nads by actively opposing US policy
US : "Ouch, you kicked me in the nads ! Take that !"
US population starts boycotting French products

Where should it end ? Should we go all the way to a commercial war between the EU and the US ? Or should we stop to look only at his own bellybutton ?

[Drake Tungsten]

Where should it end ? Should we go all the way to a commercial war between the EU and the US ?

Why would an EU-US trade war develop? Americans only hate the French and I doubt the frogs can convince the rest of Europe to join them in a suicidal trade war with the world's biggest economy...

[Spiffor]

Frogger :
I hate to admit this, but you're wrong. Laws, constitution and repression sure cannot save a culture, but it can tremendously help.

In France, a law has been passed by the culture minister, that radio stations had to broadcast French at least 40% of French speaking music IIRC, including 20% of young artists. Until then, the whole French musical scene sucked, except for a few very rare bands. Now, a ton of good bands ave had their chance to be broadcasted, and the disc industry has been amazed to notice there was a demand for French music, even among the young generation. Today's French music is pretty solid, and it wouldn't be if this repressive law hadn't existed.

[KrazyHorse]

The EU could start to impose some of those 4 billion dollars in trade barriers that they've been granted, to start off with. Or individual member countries could do so for their part of it.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Originally posted by Spiffor
The scene : US kicks France in the nads by threatening its client Saddam
France : 'Ouch, you kick me in the nads ! Take that !"
France kicks the US in the nads by actively opposing US policy
US : "Ouch, you kicked me in the nads ! Take that !"
US population starts boycotting French products

This is actually funny if you do it with the proper French and American (preferably Texan) accents.

Where should it end ? Should we go all the way to a commercial war between the EU and the US ? Or should we stop to look only at his own bellybutton ?

I don't know. I'm not the one who's worried about kicks in the nads.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Where should it end ? Should we go all the way to a commercial war between the EU and the US ?

Why would an EU-US trade war develop? Americans only hate the French and I doubt the frogs can convince the rest of Europe to join them in a suicidal trade war with the world's biggest economy...

It is impossible for a lawmaker to do sanctions on French products only, because EU countries belong to the same market and same origins. Would the Yanks be bigoted enough to demand their lawmakers to punish French imports, these lawmakers would have no choice but to punish all EU products.
France could never convince the EU to enter a commercial war with the US, but a bigoted US could force the EU to enter such a war.