Conservative Sarkozy Wins Presidency of France

Reader reporter tips us to a story just up at the NYTimes reporting that the tough-talking conservative candidate Nicolas Sarkozy has won election as the president of France. His opponent, Socialist Party candidate Ségolène Royal, the first woman to get as far as the runoff in a presidential contest in France, has conceded defeat. The vote went 53% to Sarkozy and the turnout was a remarkable (by American standards) 85% of registered voters. Sarkozy is seen as a divisive figure for his demand that immigrants learn Western values (and the French language).

Comments

Re:Obl.

[AchiIIe]

Actually, speaking of the USA, how does "conservative french" relate to "conservative american". Is 'their right' our left? It appears conservatives there are pro-american, whereas conservatives here are anti-french (freedom fries?)

One word

[pieterh]

Thatcher.

Re:One word

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, and Thatcher was a good thing for the UK, as much as any hates to admit it. After the waste and ruin of the 70's she and the Tories managed to take the country and turn it into something useful again. We were dragged, kicking and screaming away from a manufacturing economy to a service economy, which has proved to be a good decision for the two decades following. Yes, the Tories fucked up a lot of stuff (They decimated the NHS and the Poll Tax was never a good idea, and the sleaze and corruption in the later years is only matched by that of New Labour now) but on the whole, it was a painful but necasary time for Britian.

France is quite possibly in a worse position than Britian was in, in the 70's. Labour laws in France have practicall sucked the life out of the economy. I'm all for workers rights, but not at the expense of there being no jobs to work in.

Re:Are you sure ...

[Anonymous Coward]

And it didn't. All the Democrat's other failings in 2000/04 did that just fine.

Re:And one of the first statements he made:

[Anonymous Coward]

The issue was not the popularity of their respective genders, but of policy - that's why she lost.

French bashing?

[i_want_you_to_throw_]

I'm not entirely sure why the France bashing continues. Frankly it appeared that they were right regarding Iraq. France is certainly one of the greatest allies this country has had, in fact we wouldn't be this large had Napolean not sold us the Louisiana Purchase to pay for his war with England. If anything we owe them quite a bit and their only crime is that they are just as patriotic to their country as we are to ours.

Now with that being said, do you know why there are trees on the Champs D'Elysees? So the Germans can march in the shade!

Re:French bashing?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right to be fair, it's not like America didn't have a surrender like stance when it came to the Suez situation in refusing to give support, much like the French refused to give support to the US over Iraq. France really hasn't shat on America anymore than America has shat on France.

From a British point of view, I'm not entirely sure why we give so much support to the US when they treat us with an awful lot of disrespect also. It's not like they didn't screw us in the Suez crisis as well. There's plenty of other examples of US disrespect towards us as one of it's strongest allies such as always entirely downplaying the years of fighting we were doing in World War II before they even decided to join in (most American's probably don't even know what the Battle of Britain was). Even now where we support them in Iraq the US goverment is essentially blanking us when it comes to request for support into the inquiry of friendly fire incidents instigated by US personnel - when a US A10 pilot kills our troops even an apology would be nice, refusing to even cooperate in the slightest is outright insulting.

America would do well to learn to respect other countries, realise that it does sometimes need allies in this world and that when nations do support it that that support should perhaps be remembered and respected, not ignored.

Re:French bashing?

[ScrewMaster]

They helped finance the Revolution ... without France the United States would have been stillborn. They gave us the Statue of Liberty in recognition of the friendship and mutual respect between the two nations. Remember when Jane Fonda commented to Johnny Carson, "What did the French ever do for us?" That earned her Carson's famous wide-eyed "what the fuck?" look.

Of course, people would have to have some awareness of history to know any of this. There's a reason why we teach history in schools. It has numerous benefits: among other things, it helps you to remember who your friends are.

Re:French bashing?

[Anonymous Coward]

I come to the US several times a year, and boy if I were to form an opinion on experiences like these I would 've gone crazy.
And you went to Europe for three weeks, only once were you treated like that.
Please, learn to relativise.

By the way, I'm Belgian, not French.

I went out to buy lunch a few days ago at the grocer around the corner. An American on holiday with his wife and three kids was furious because the grocer didn't have anything else but Tobasco to spice up his sandwich. "I don't want that shit it's too American, don't you people have your own stuff!" were his exact words.

Yes i've only seen it happening once at the grocery, but it's hard not to form a lasting impression!

Re:French bashing?

[Waffle Iron]

... and I suppose that the Spanish obtained control of Louisiana from its original occupants fair and square.

Re:French bashing?

[MrSteveSD]

I'm not entirely sure why the France bashing continues.

Well it was encouraged from the highest levels of Government. First of all you had Rumsfeld etc al, dismissing France as "old Europe". This was effectively an ad-hominem attack. Rather than dealing with the important issues it raised, France was effectively the subject of name calling. Then you had the "Freedom Fries" escapade in the House Of Representatives where all the menus were changed. France was then routinely accused of anti-Americanism in the media. All of this kept peoples attention away from Frances actual objections to military action, amongst which were that it did not believe there was an imminent danger from WMDs, that invading Iraq had nothing to do with fighting terrorism and that a war would destabilize the Middle East.

The whole racist tirade against France in the US was/is interesting, especially at a time when there is so much discussion about anti-Americanism. Renaming French Fries to freedom fries is definitely anti-French, but is criticising US actions in Iraq or other foreign policy issues, Anti-American? I think not. It seems to me that currently the concept of anti-Americanism is being used as propaganda. Americans are being encouraged to feel that they themselves are being targeted in some racist way, when it is in fact government policy that is being criticised. The result of this is that people are more likely to rally behind their government when confronted with such criticism. The Russian government uses the same trick when it's policies are criticised. The Russian people are deliberately made to feel that everyone is against them.

When you are angry with a country because of specific military or political issues, you should address those specific issues and argue your case. It's all to easy to be dragged into name calling by government and the media.

Re:French bashing?

[fm6]

Spain giving Louisiana to France was just one of those colony swaps that occurred regularly in those days. Spain got Louisiana from France that way in the first place. Neither country was serious about colonizing the territory properly, which was the only way they could have held onto it. And of course, even that doesn't really work, as the American Revolution demonstrates. You just can't control territory that's so hard to communicate with and to supply.

France gets accused of "stealing" Louisiana because they were occupying Spain at the time. But neither France nor Spain had the slightest hope of holding onto Louisiana — and both countries knew it.

Re:French bashing?

[ConceptJunkie]

Wow. You managed to blame the origin of French-bashing on President Bush, and it sounds believable.

Now, if you can do that for global warming on Mars, the heartbreak of psoriasis the Black Plague and rap it will be official that everything bad that has ever happened is Bush's fault.

Reasonable people don't have a problem with the French criticizing us. We do have a problem with the French being obstructionist against the U.S. at every turn (they wouldn't allow flights through their airspace during the first Gulf War), or the fact that anything they had to say regarding Iraq, correct or not, was compromised by the fact that they were on the take from Saddam. There are many more reasons I could list, but it has always appeared to me that the French government behaves as if it resents the fact that France is no longer a major world power, and they will do everything they can to appear influential, even if most of it is merely throwing a wrench into things.

Perhaps the French people, who as a whole seem to be decent folks, have finally gotten tired of their country's "Short Man's Disease" or being sold out to lazy people and hostile immigrants that they have chosen a leader that might actually have their interests in mind.

Re:French bashing?

[stephanruby]

First off, there was a choice between Iraq or Iran. Gee, we picked the lesser of two evils.

Not really, the US doesn't always pick the lesser of two evils. The US Government first picks an enemy for its own reasons, then and only then, it rationalizes its decision after-the-fact by demonizing its chosen enemy and by praising its chosen ally. I could give you specific examples, but frankly -- I'm not even sure you'd be willing to change your mind -- so I'm not going to bother citing those examples unless you specifically ask for them.

Re:French bashing?

[808140]

Repaid generously? Are you nuts? Do you know how many people the US lost in WWII? Total? In both the European and Pacific theaters? 300 thousand. That's it. And we lost most of our people fighting Japan, not the Germans.

Do you know how many people the USSR lost? 27 million. By the time we invaded Normandy, Germany was already collapsing. Do you know why we waited as long as we did? Tit-for-tat revenge: Lenin pulled the newly formed Soviet Union out of WWI as soon as he took power in 1917, leaving us and our allies high and dry. We didn't need to wait as long as we did; Stalin was begging us for reinforcements, and we could have invaded at any time, but we stood our ground, as a kind of "fuck you" to the Russians, who were hemorrhaging soldiers. Meanwhile, France suffered.

And in WWI, France kicked ass militarily, and remained a major European power. Our role in WWI was relatively small and unimportant compared to Britain and France, who lest you forget, were the world superpowers then. We benefited tremendously from WWII; we were the only developed nation to emerge unscathed, whereas Europe was decimated, its infrastructure utterly destroyed, reduced to a smoking pile of rubble. Then, as if that weren't enough, we enacted the Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe, which more than anything drove the economic growth we experienced in the 1950s -- because the Europeans lacked the infrastructure to produce the goods they required, they were forced to buy them from us, on money we lent them.

Of course, much later we forgave that debt, and patted ourselves on the back and said, look what nice people we are. But in the meantime we had engineered American corporate dominance, and Europe has been in our shadow ever since. And sniveling little brats in the US grow up thinking that our country did all the heavy lifting in World War II, when the harsh truth is that the USSR sacrificed nearly 1 in 10 of its people to save Europe. When De Gaulle had the gall to suggest that France should maintain friendly diplomatic ties with the Soviet Union, we actually criticized him!

It is sickening -- absolutely sickening -- to hear people who clearly have never bothered reading a history book in their lives say that France "owes" us for WWII, when we were too cowardly to even engage the Wehrmacht until we knew the Soviet Union had them licked. Then we raised two generations of Americans on propaganda, never even mentioning the sacrifice they made.

The Russians were the heroes of that war. They deserve our respect, which we've never given them. And I would suggest that you never go dangling WWII in the face of the French -- or anyone else in Europe -- again.

Re:French bashing?

[evilviper]

300 thousand. That's it. And we lost most of our people fighting Japan, not the Germans. Do you know how many people the USSR lost? 27 million. By the time we invaded Normandy, Germany was already collapsing.

It's pure and complete bullshit to claim that lost lives equates with military progress. Yes, the Russians lost far more people. No, they didn't play a bigger role in defeating the Axis than the Americans and British.

the harsh truth is that the USSR sacrificed nearly 1 in 10 of its people to save Europe.

The USSR sacrificed nearly 1 in 10 of its people to save itself from the invading German army. Also because life in the USSR was cheap, and Stalin has no compunction about under-equipping soldiers, and sending hordes to sacrifice themselves. With better military leadership, most of those deaths need not have occurred.

You could at least have PRETENDED to be fair, by comparing American casualties to British military casualties. Inequitable casualties are extremely normal in east-west conflicts, as well as clashes between developed/non-developed countries. Examples like the Vietnam war have over a million North Vietnamese dead, with only 60,000 Americans. (There were many South Vietnamese dead, but this is just an example, and the disparity is still very high.)

.

Your comments here are just as propaganda-based, and historically inaccurate as the others you pretend to criticize...

You are get modded up only because what you're saying is overwhelmingly anti-American, which is always a popular opinion, even if completely unsupported by any evidence.

Re:French bashing?

[freedom_india]

USSR had broken the wehrmacht's steel backbone before US stepped in.
And USSR had to send in every man, child because their homeland was invaded and occupied, you mor*n !
If US homeland had been "entered into", am damn sure we would through all the Geneva conventions to wind and send in 5-10 yrs old... (heck even before that, we have started Gitmo, etc)
So stop piggy backing on the high horse and do not even compare the casualities USSR faced with that of self-inflicted wounds like Vietnam and Iraq (now).

Re:French bashing?

[808140]

You're drunk on cold war propaganda. There's no doubt that the USSR and Germany had a pact do divide Europe -- but that's no different than the arms, technology, and supplies that we (as in the US, the UK, and France) gave the Nazis to protect us from the Communist threat we perceived from the USSR. Germany at the end of WWI was not in any sort of position to engineer the huge economic and military comeback that they did on their own -- they had help, and it was from us (the Allies). When the Nazis invaded Czechoslovakia, what did the Allies do? Nothing. The UK and France were deadset on avoiding war, and they feared Stalin, so not only did they appease Hitler, they actually armed him (the US is guilty of this too). And we (the US) entered the European theater in December of 1941, nearly 3 years after WWII started on the continent.

Sure, the USSR and Nazi Germany signed a pact, but neither of them had any intention of honoring it, as the Nazis hated and feared Communists and Stalin gravely underestimated Hitler. And here's the thing -- until people became aware of the atrocities being committed by the Nazi party, what was wrong with supporting them? You must keep the time frame in mind: we now see Nazis as the embodiment of all evil, but before news of the Holocaust got out, the Nazis were just another fascist party. And again, lest you forget, the reason fascism enjoyed such popular support in Europe (and elsewhere) in the late 30s early 40s was because of the Great Depression, which left many people wondering whether or not free market capitalism could even work: the only country left untouched by the depression was the Soviet Union. Now of course we better understand the effects of monetary policy and investment on the economy, and know that that's bunk, but at the time, people thought that crashes like the great depression may be a result of the inherent instability of markets, and statism in its left and right wing forms was immensely popular, especially in nations that had been monarchies in fairly recent memory.

There's one other very important point, and this is mainly why I accused you of being drunk on cold war propaganda. Stalin severely changed the direction of the Soviet Union's expansionist policies by declaring the feasibility of "Socialism in one Nation". You see, up until then, much Communist thinking was centered on the idea that the whole world must be Communist, or capitalist trade would remain a driving economic force on the national level. Sure, the USSR might be communist, but they would still need to buy and sell commodities on the international markets, meaning that they were a socialist enclave that still needed to concern itself with free market details. Trotsky was very much against this idea, and continued to champion the idea of worldwide revolution until his death. Stalin, on the other hand, suggested that the USSR concentrate on itself and less on the rest of the world. He felt that having the USSR be Socialist was enough, and that there was no need to forment revolt in the rest of the world.

In other words, the world-domination plans you speak of were, well, non-existent.

Furthermore, and this I really don't get, you say "they've [the USSR] already invaded several Eastern European countries" -- uhh, which? Why don't you take a look at this map of Europe in 1920, after WWI and tell me what nations they "invaded" by the time WWII came around. The answer, simply, is none -- those nations behind the iron curtain fell under Soviet influence after WWII, and that was a result of the Allies carving up Europe. The poor relations between the Warsaw Pact nations and the NATO nations was a direct result of the Cold War, and the iron curtain was a result of that. Lest you forget, West Germany was also occupied by the Allies.

And just in case you're confused, I'm not saying that the USSR was great in every way -- just that they bled for Europe in a way that cannot possibly be c

Tant mieux pour la France!

[Rytis]

Sarkozy had been forecasted to win this election since maybe 2002 and everyone knew he would be the next President. Gladly, this happened to be true. Besides, he is less conservative than a liberal, at least that's what his ideas represents especially concerning economic issues (and France has lots of them).

If someone of you has seen the debates between the two a few days ago (you can watch it on YouTube now), you wouldn't have any doubts. I just can't understand those 47% who had. Mrs Royal didn't have a program. She didn't have any ideas of how to rebuild France. Everything I can remember from the debate from her words is "I will do it / I would be able to do it" or even "You're not credible Mr Sarkozy / You're politically immoral".

Think of Royal as George W. Bush being a socialist woman. Damn scary.

Re:Tant mieux pour la France!

[anti-pop-frustration]

Think of Royal as George W. Bush being a socialist woman. Damn scary.
Actually, if someone has to be compared to George W. Bush it really is Nicolas Sarkozy. France is now as polarized as the US was after the Bush 2004 victory.

Many liberals in France were not conviced by Segolene Royal at all, just like many liberals in the US weren't conviced by John Kerry. They did not vote for a candidate but against someone else. The "lesser of two evil" syndrome that is so familiar in US politics.

Sarkozy won, but just like George W. Bush in 2004, the people that did not vote for him (half of the population) really hate him and what he stands for (pro big corporation, anti-immigration etc.).

He now is president of a deeply divided country... we all saw how well that worked out for the US.

Re:Tant mieux pour la France!

[Jerf]

You speak as if the politicians are creating the divisions, rather than being the manifestation of them.

Countries are divided. That's how it is. If voting one way creates a relatively peaceful union where differences are worked out politely and within the system, and voting the other way creates a fractured country full of acrimony and bad feelings, then one side is clearly a bad loser (and that's more dangerous to democracy than you might think, as the essense of democracy is to have the losers accept their loss, not crown the winners).

And if that is the case, the side that is being the poor losers and choosing to tear apart the democracy rather than accept loss is the side that, when they win, produces the relatively peaceful government. The side that, when they win, produces "polarization" is the more democratic side. (Being in a Democracy means your side loses sometimes. That's life.)

Take that as you will. I've deliberately not name names. For one thing, it's never a choice between total chaos or total harmony, but I'd be confident that taken as trends, this point stands.

Re:Tant mieux pour la France!

[NaCh0]

Actually, if someone has to be compared to George W. Bush it really is Nicolas Sarkozy. France is now as polarized as the US was after the Bush 2004 victory.

Let's see here, the conservative wins 53% and the country is polarized but if the socialist were to win with 53% there would be unity and the French version of kum-ba-ya. That is disgusting. I guess in your view that the socialists have to redouble their efforts of "educating" the public.

Re:And one of the first statements he made:

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, because only communists vote for women leaders.

Troll.

Re: Can we be next?

[Black Parrot]

When Sarkozy is done with France do you think he could come over here for a few years? I like his ideas on immigrants, it would be nice if our "President" had the balls! A hard line on immigrants won't happen in the USA. The Democrats wouldn't think it's nice, and the Republicans are split between the social conservatives who want it and the monied folk who don't think it's in their best interest.

The election year attempt to push immigration reform through the Republican Congress was one of several factors leading to that party's recent implosion.

Good for the economy, at least

[powerpants]

This will be a good thing for France's economy, which has been sluggish in recent years due to the country's labor policies. It is illegal in France to work more than 35 hours a week, which makes it difficult to successfully start a small business. Royal offered a comforting promise that France could keep their old ways in place and still be economically competitive, but France has apparently opted for a tougher kind of love.

Furthermore, just because he's "conservative" by French standards, don't think that means he'd belong to the GOP.

Re:Good for the economy, at least

[mehgul]

Actually, the 35h week is the least of the problems, although I'll welcome its demise if it comes as a way to slack off and be paid for more hours at the same time(the main effect of the 35h week has been to increase per-worker productivity by increasing the work pace, and not reduce unemployment as it was intended).
Anyway I don't think many people in France believed in Royal's programme or ideas, most of those 47% who voted for her mostly did it as a vote against Sarkozy. That's my case, I can't stand his ideas on society and a police state. I believe big business would have thrived anyway, neither Royal nor Sarkozy can for example do anything about factory relocations in cheaper countries, but they both claimed otherwise.
In any case, it's a stretch to think of French "socialists" as socialists. The last socialist government sold more State-owned companies than the right-wing governements before and after.

Sarkozy, interesting name...

[A beautiful mind]

His father was a hungarian immigrant, so that's where his name comes from.

Sarkozy is seen as a divisive figure for his demand that immigrants learn Western values (and the French language).

I don't see anything wrong with this. If you don't like it, you should have immigrated into a different country.

Re:Sarkozy, interesting name...

[ghoul]

I hardly ever agree with the Republicans on anything but English as an offical language makes sense. Multiculturalism is a good thing and if it wont be promoted in a nation of immigrants where will it be? At the same time it does cost money to print things in multiple languages. I would think a rich nation like USA should be able to afford the costs but if certain towns and cities are economically depressed and cant afford the cost they should be able to just print in English. At the same time Language is important to people and noone should demean the language of somebody else. USA should follow the Indian model where everyone learns English and Hindi the official languages but they also get to choose a third language to learn in school where people can learn their own mother tongue as the third language. Knowing more never hurt anyone.

Re:Obl.

[WED Fan]

conservatives here are anti-french (freedom fries?)

Well, someone had to use a broad brush stroke. Aren't you glad it was you?

For your info, not all conservatives did that. In fact, I'd say it was only the most publicity seeking ones that tried that little bit of triteness.

Re:Are you sure ...

[rachit]

"savvy masses"?

Where multicultural tolerance is bad.

[twitter]

Sarkozy is seen as a divisive figure for his demand that immigrants learn Western values (and the French language).

Some of that is good. There has been some very bad "multiculturalism" case law in the EU recently, where women have been beaten and abused but that was OK because it was supposedly "their" culture and the host country should not interfere. This makes a mockery of the foreign culture as well as allowing injustice. It is right for France, and every other country, to demand respect and offer protection for all of their citizens. Injustice and brutality should not be tolerated anywhere. Doing so in the name of "in my country we put woman in cage" is racism in disguise.

Re:And one of the first statements he made:

[Eivind]

There's no indication whatsoever that sex was important, or even relevant, in this election.

Unlike the two major parties in the US, the various parties in France actually have significantly different political ideas, like you said there's even an active communist party.

How do you say...

[HangingChad]

Sarkozy is seen as a divisive figure for his demand that immigrants learn Western values (and the French language).

How do you say 'Thank you, Diebold' in French?

Seriously, though, if I'm going to move to France I'm at least going to try and learn French. And I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that if you want to come and work in America, you might pick up a little English first.

Perhaps making it a demand is what makes it unreasonable? I'm not sure. It doesn't seem like it should be that divisive. To me it would be reasonable to expect that those wishing to immigrate would reflect the values and language of their adopted country.

If I moved to Canada I'd say "a-boot" instead of about. It's just polite.

Re:How do you say...

[nacturation]

If I moved to Canada I'd say "a-boot" instead of about. It's just polite. And 99% of Canadians would look at you and break out laughing. This accent is heavily concentrated on the East coast and was influenced by Scottish immigrants. Imagine Groundskeeper Willie pronouncing the word, and you'd have it about right. Implying that you'd learn to say "a-boot" to be polite is like saying that anyone going to the USA should practice saying "Y'all come back now, ya hear?" to be polite.

Free Software

[Nymz]

He was the only candidate who doesn't support, or even have a clear stance on free software.
Not that that's the most important quality in a president, but it would have been nice.

As a fellow Slashdotter, I also care about technology issues. But at the same time realize they will have to take a back seat while there are active special intrest groups that believe the end (one world Muslim, or one world Communism) justifies the means (violence).

Re:Are you sure ...

[CosmeticLobotamy]

So if we leave Iraq, do the terrorists win or lose?

There are no ties in warfare.

Of course the terrorists win. That's what you get for agreeing to play a game whose conditions for victory are so horribly skewed in the other guy's favor. We've got to wipe out every single one of them. They just have to wait and shoot into the air every once in a while so everyone knows they didn't forfeit. So of course we're not going to win. We should have tried a lot harder to get them to play a different game.

It's called a democracy

[DaveAtFraud]

Just because the person you disagree with wins doesn't mean that the system is broken. I don't recall hearing a single complaint about the French electoral system. Maybe the conservative's ideas actually appealed to more voters.

Cheers,
Dave

Re:And one of the first statements he made:

[anti-pop-frustration]

You have a country with a female Minister of Defense and an active Communist Party Active communist party ? They've got 1.93% of the votes in this presidential election, they're about as big as the libertarians or greens in the US. That would hardly qualify as "active" or influential.

Yes, there are other left-wing parties in france, but the communist party is just a ghost of the past now.

Re:Are you sure ...

[furball]

By plunder you mean let the first oil contracts go to China and Vietnam right?

http://money.cnn.com/2007/04/05/news/international /iraq_oil/index.htm

Why divisive?

[DaveAtFraud]

Sarkozy is seen as a divisive figure for his demand that immigrants learn Western values (and the French language).

Why is learning the language and culture of the country you move to viewed as divisive? All of my grandparents came to the U.S. at around 1900 from eastern Europe. None of them expected to be able to continue speaking German or Lithuanian once they got here so they learned English. My parents, aunts and uncles all spoke English and succeeded in taking part in the "American dream" (house, education, kids went to college if they wanted to, etc.). That wouldn't have happened if they were still acting like they were still in the "old country."

Insisting that immigrants learn the language and culture isn't divisive. It's the best way for them to fit into their new society and succeed. How far would Sarkozy have goten if he only spoke Hungarian?

Cheers,
Dave

divisive? political correctness in action?

[porky_pig_jr]

nowdays requirement for the immigrants to learn the western values and the language of the country they live is called 'divisive'. what is the alternative? Nowdays both France and England are filled with pakis and arabs hating the West, kind of a bomb about to explode (in fact already started exploding).

Re:divisive? political correctness in action?

[brightmidnight]

Actually, the problems in both England and France (the ones bombing the subway, plotting to blow up planes in England and setting cars on fire outside of Paris) are second- or third-generation immigrants. Their parents completely assimilated to the extent that many of their parents didn't practice Islam much at all, and when the disenchanted kids hear a bit more about Islam on a trip home to Pakistan, they fall completely into it and want to bomb their home countries. I have no idea why this is, but it's not a matter of immigrants assimilating because their parents have already assimilated completely in most cases.

Re: Can we be next?

[enharmonix]

A hard line on immigrants won't happen in the USA. The Democrats wouldn't think it's nice, and the Republicans are split between the social conservatives who want it and the monied folk who don't think it's in their best interest. Put a bit more cynically: Republicans want cheap labor, Democrats want cheap votes.

Now I'm depressed...

Sarkozy is a right-winger...

[BlackCobra43]

...but not an idiot. Of course he won't help you in Iraq, that's YOUR mess everyone told you to stay out of and now YOU will clean it up or leave with your tail between your legs.

Re:Sarkozy is a right-winger...

[TempeTerra]

Hussein was complying, grumpily, with UN inspections. The US is the aggressor in a war which was no more necessary than one against any other murderous despot. It sucks that you started it, and it sucks that you can't get out of it without leaving the country as a wilderness of genocidal lawlessness, but it's your baby.

Re:And one of the first statements he made:

[Mutatis Mutandis]

France will always come to the aid of the U.S. when it seeks it from us." Why he's called America's New Poodle.

Sarkozy has made a point of highlighting the French love for Coca-Cola, jeans and American movies; concluding from this that he would be inclined to support Dubyah's policies is a stone's throw too far. Sarkozy is neither stupid nor inclined to political suicide. He has promised the USA friendship, but immediately made clear that the Americans would have to accept "that friends can think differently". I think Sarkozy knows very well that the Bush administration is allergic to constructive criticism, but that doesn't matter any more. Sarkozy's real problem is finding common ground with the next American president, and he may well opt for backing the future winner early, instead of associating himself with the loser in office. For example, Sarkozy's position on Iraq is not that far distant from the position the next US president is likely to have, i.e. phased withdrawal.

Something to think about though. You have a country with a female Minister of Defense and an active Communist Party and they won't elect a female? So Hillary's chances rank somewhere below slim and none?

The French communist party is now a mere shadow of what it used to be.

Royal's problem is not that she is female, but that she is a poor campaigner. Her starting position was not that bad, her selection as the socialist candidate generated some genuine enthusiasm. But then she blew it. She was gaffe-prone throughout the campaign, her political platform was a collection of crowd-pleasers, her statements on policy consisted mostly of baked air, and in the decisive last phase she resorted to blatant scare tactics.

On the other hand, Americans could do worse than adopt the French election system. A genuine, fair two-round election, an 85% voter turn-out, a clear majority for the winner, and the election over at election night --- not bad, isn't it?

Unfortunately they know of 2 bad precedents

[sethstorm]

When dealing with the business class, trust not in them with politics or economics for they will sell you down the river. Thankfully there are 2 well-known incidents that have proven this("PATCO" Reagan and "The Butcher" Thatcher) - and hopefully Sarko will be aware that he doesnt have much of a chance of stemming the violence ahead (much less being able to appeal to nation outside of resigning).

Re:Can we be next?

[be-fan]

The immigration problem in France is a world away from the "problems" we have in the US. By and large, our immigrants either end up working hard in the lower runs of society, and many end up leading productive lives in the professional class (doctors, engineers, etc). Many groups in our immigrant population assimilate (most everyone outside of some hispanics) and even the ones that don't do not go out of their way to resist American culture.

In comparison, the French have to deal with huge waves of lower-class immigrants who clog up their social welfare system. Moreover, not only do they not assimilate, but they actively resist and antagonize the native culture.

We have our problems with immigrants sure (like most poor classes, they commit more crimes, etc), but there is no way to compare our problems to those faced by the French. When we have Hispanics rioting en masse in the streets, like Muslims in France are doing, then maybe your sentiments will be valid.

Re: Can we be next?

[AoT]

Lets be honest here, both parties want cheap labor and cheap votes.

They just have to tailor their rhetoric to the right parts of society.

Re:Are you sure ...

[Original Replica]

Actually, the conditions aren't so skewed in the terrorist's favor, we are just fighting the wrong war. We can't handily win a war of bullets and lives against them, because they are willing to lose far more than we are. The war we should be fighting is in changing the values and culture of Iraq and Afganistan. Feed them the line about "the pen is mightier than the sword" and hope they buy it. I'll take angry letters and protest signs over bombings and kidnappings any day. They won't blow up LA if they are too busy watching American Idol. This is where I find myself agreeing with Sarkozy and his call for immigrants to "learn the French language and Values". This war is a war of cultures, it's not about countries and borders, it's about which set of values will endure. And multiculturalism doesn't work, unless you want to surrender all other values to it. Take Germanys conflict with multiculturalism vs. Women's Rights.

"The crux case centres on a woman called Nishal, a 26-year-old Moroccan immigrant to Germany with two kids and a psychotic husband. Since their wedding night, this husband beat the hell out of her. She crawled to the police covered in wounds, and they ordered the husband to stay away from her. He refused. He terrorised her with death threats. So Nishal went to the courts to request an early divorce, hoping that once they were no longer married he would leave her alone. A judge who believed in the rights of women would find it very easy to make a judgement: you're free from this man, case dismissed. But Judge Christa Datz-Winter followed the logic of multiculturalism instead. She said she would not grant an early divorce because - despite the police documentation of extreme violence and continued threats - there was no "unreasonable hardship" here. Why? Because the woman, as a Muslim, should have "expected" it, the judge explained. She read out passages from the Koran to show that Muslim husbands have the "right to use corporal punishment". Look at Sura 4, verse 34, she said to Nishal, where the Koran says he can hammer you. That's your culture. Goodbye, and enjoy your beatings. This is not a freakish exception. Germany's only state-level Minister for Integration, Armin Laschet, says this is only "the last link, for the time being, in a chain of horrific rulings handed down by the German courts".

http://comment.independent.co.uk/columnists_a_l/jo hann_hari/article2496657.ece

Trying to preserve the French culture isn't necessarily xenophobic. A significant part of what makes a country a good or bad place to live is it's culture.(yes, language is part of a culture) For example both Saudi Arabia and the USA are wealthy countries, but ask your wife or girlfriend which one she would rather live in. There is a difference between

Nicolas Sarkozy is not a neoconservative.

[reporter]

The election in France will almost prove to be the single most important event in this decade, for this election signals a tidal shift back to asserting that Western values are superior. This tidal shift will be resolutely proved if the French citizens give control of the French National Assembly to pro-Sarkozy politicians in June.

Note that Sarkozy is not a neoconservative in the American sense. In European culture, he may seem very conservative, but in American culture, he is mostly a moderate populist. He wants to maximize the wealth for the middle class, not the upper class.

Allow me to elaborate. First, he opposes an open-border policy. Most American neoconservatives favor an open-border policy because they like to use illegal and legal immigration to suppress wages. American agribusiness, not just Hispanic groups like La Raza, are the strongest advocates for allowing the importation of desperate foreign labor.

Sarkozy supports strong restrictions on immigration but favors treating immigrants kindly. The concept of immigrants working 14+ hours per day is considered to be cruel. He does not favor such brutal working conditions. Note that both parents of Seung Hui Cho, the mass murderer at Virginia Tech, worked 14+ hours per day. Neoconservatives applaud this situation: with glee, they self-servingly "praise" the hardworking nature of the Korean parents are. The consequence is that his parents were just too busy at work to give Seung Hui Cho the proper care that he needed. They never even noticed his rapid mental degeneration.

Second, Sarkozy supports globalization with only other free markets. So, he supports the European Union. However, he opposes fake free trade with non-free markets like India. He realizes that this kind of trade drives down the quality of life in France. He realizes that combining a free market and a non-free market damages the operation of the free market.

By contrast, American neoconservatives favor fake free trade with non-free markets like India.

Nonetheless, Sarkozy will (if the legislative election in June is favorable) will vastly transform France. It will not be the brutal kind (i.e., 14+ hours of work by illegal aliens) of capitalism in America. Rather, France will be a kinder, gentler economic superpower. If he succeeds (and I think that he will), I would likely prefer to live in France instead of America.

"divisive"?

[mad.frog]

I know nothing of this guy's policies, but asking immigrants to learn the dominant language, and assimilate (at least partially) into the existing culture sounds extraordinarily reasonable to me.

If you want to immigrate somewhere (and by "immigrate" I mean "live there long term"), I would think you'd *want* to learn the local language and customs. I know I sure would...

Re:"divisive"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course it sounds reasonable to ask immigrants to learn the language, but he is asking to learn it *prior* to request immigration. This is excuse to select as many people he wants to let come in. And how difficult would be the language test ? Probably some french wont be able to pass it !
This language issue is just an excuse to refuse most of the immigrants, that's why it is controversial.

Re:Can we be next?

[Blakey Rat]

What do the rioting immigrants expecting from the white French, exactly? It seems to me like they already get far more support than they do in 95% of the countries on Earth, and probably just as much as in the US.

Every OTHER commentary on the recent riots (except yours) hold that the rioters, while not technically immigrants, are not at all assimilated into French culture and nearly all, if not all, were Muslims. The media, in the interest of political correctness, tends to call them "youths." I'd be interested to know what your source is, and why you're saying the opposite of everybody else.

Re:Obl.

[aled]

In Spain, the left parties think of democrats as a rigth party. Republicans are considered ultra-right.

In almost any country other than the USA, almost everyone think of democrats as a right party. Republicans are considered ultra-right.

Re:Nicolas Sarkozy is not a neoconservative.

[king-manic]

Sarkozy supports strong restrictions on immigration but favors treating immigrants kindly. The concept of immigrants working 14+ hours per day is considered to be cruel. He does not favor such brutal working conditions. Note that both parents of Seung Hui Cho, the mass murderer at Virginia Tech, worked 14+ hours per day. Neoconservatives applaud this situation: with glee, they self-servingly "praise" the hardworking nature of the Korean parents are. The consequence is that his parents were just too busy at work to give Seung Hui Cho the proper care that he needed. They never even noticed his rapid mental degeneration

Cho's parents were aware of his erratic behavior. They didn't know what to do with it. How you help your son who's all of a sudden gone weird? Most of us would chalk it up to growing up since most of our kids aren't murderous pathetic narcissistic sociopaths. My parents were asian immigrants who worked 14h days and I came out fine.

Re:Nicolas Sarkozy is not a neoconservative.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Neoconservative" is a liberal propaganda term. I have never heard anyone describe themself as a "neocon". Conservatives just call themselves conservatives. They've no need to invent a new name for themselves.

And as you correctly observe, the OP is dreck.

Re:Nicolas Sarkozy is not a neoconservative.

[pi_rules]

Note that both parents of Seung Hui Cho, the mass murderer at Virginia Tech, worked 14+ hours per day. Neoconservatives applaud this situation: with glee, they self-servingly "praise" the hardworking nature of the Korean parents are. The consequence is that his parents were just too busy at work to give Seung Hui Cho the proper care that he needed. They never even noticed his rapid mental degeneration.

I'm pretty solidly in the conservative camp and voted for Bush in 2004 but I have issues with working long hours dumping somebody into the neocon camp. I detest the neocon thinking as it is not conservative. I regret my vote for Dubya.

In my junior year of high school I pulled 60+ hour work weeks while still attending high school. My senior year I pulled 40+ hour work weeks while still attending school and competing in Track. I left the family busines but I'm the only one that has.

My father has clocked up to 106 hours a week at the family business. My brother considers it a day off when he only works 7.5 hours there this time of year. Still works 7 days a week though.

We're not immigrants. My great grandfather floated over here from the Old Country on a boat when he was 4, and at 18 set out as a share cropper. He tilled his first field with a borrowed shovel as he didn't have enough money to buy a damned shovel. He died in 2002 at the age of 86 and I went back to work after his funeral that day because that was how I was raised: You do your job.

Re:Obl.

[shaitand]

You can't win, the right cuts taxes (for the wealthy) and increases government spending. The left increases taxes (for comfortable individuals) and increases government spending.

Both cut taxes for corporations and increase government handouts to corporations. Both reduce the rights of citizens and grant new ones to corporations. Both support copyright regimes.

The right claims to cater to rural nuts and wins the heart of the 'common man' by claiming that those who educate themselves and have brains 'intellectuals' are somehow bad and shouldn't be listened to. The left claims to cater to those with thoughts and be the party of reason.

Neither lives up to those promises, they just pay lip service to them (although the right is closer, since they are officially in favor of business over individuals they just ignore the rest of the nonsense). Both strengthen the central government, attempt to weaken the judicial branch, and attempt to take all the power upon themselves.

Its a rigged game. The only hope is revolution and revolution won't come. The only ones who have the stomach for violence are the ignorant masses. The only ones bright enough to understand the need are intellectuals who don't have the stomach and still haven't realized that violence sometimes IS the answer.

I'm not saying I have the stomach for revolution either. I'm just stating the facts. I'm just hoping to stay under the radar and hope the march doesn't move so quickly I have to move to another western nation that is a couple steps behind in the process. In the end all governments grow corrupt and must be abolished.

Re:Obl.

[jcr]

suppressing inheritance taxes

Sorry, I'm not quite following your phrasing here. Are you for or against the government getting one last shot at looting personal wealth, after taxing someone all his life?

-jcr

Re:Nicolas Sarkozy is not a neoconservative.

[jcr]

they'll never even come close to an economic superpower.

Japan did it, and so can the French. They just have to give up on socialism.

-jcr

Re:Obl.

[jcr]

Sarkozy has been consistently involved with intimidation

Sounds like a smear to me. Got any proof?

BTW, Royale was on the record threatening violence if she lost, and lo and behold! Cars are burning again as we speak.

-jcr

Re:Obl.

[boule75]

Your question is fully biased and I am pleased to blow it.

"government getting one last shot at looting personal wealth" is a very subjective point of view.
- First of all, most of the money the "government" collects actually _creates value_, for instance under the guise of quite efficient health services, clean streets, museums and free education for all, TV programms, roads, etc... So those services may or may not be provided with more efficiency by the private sector, but all that money is not wasted.
- public taxes are decided by a democratic instance, private taxes are not. For instance, I would rather escape the costs of the "marketting" stuff included in cars, Ms Windows Vista licences with my PC, etc... They are very expensive, as hidden as possible and much less democratically decided.

And finally:
- considering that no poor people currently pays any inheritance tax,
- considering that most people who currently pay this tax can afford it very well,
- considering that most heirs do not deserve their good fate, and that many of them have already received a very significant heritage under the guise of privileged conditions at the beginning of their life (address book, healthy food and home, education, free housing, cars, etc... during 50 years...)
- considering that I just paid some inheritance fees, mind you, and that Mr. Sarkozy will waste them in gifts to his really wealthy pals who escape most taxes thanks to numerous and cunningly designed-for-them fiscal holes,
- I am all _against_ any suppression of the inheritance tax.

The sole question as for me relates to enterprises being sold for cheap because the owner has died and the heirs cannot afford to pay the related taxes. Most of the time, it has not been properly prepared, but this should be addressed...

Re:Obl.

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot to mention that he is also pro-software-patents. That should tell you something about his personality traits.

This guy is dangerous not because of his ideas in but that he can actually make those ideas real. He is efficient. He is smart. I'm scared for France future after last night.

Re:Are you sure ...

[yndrd1984]

On paper women seem to have an advantage in practice They don't.

Well, things are getting better (in some places more than others), but I still think that (at least on average) they still do.

The systems lean towards women because they traditionally have had less of a voice.

Automatically giving mothers custody was due to gender roles. Dad's job was to get money, mom did the touchy-feely stuff, especially with young children. The idea that women "don't have a voice" came a fair bit after sexist divorce law was in place.

If the father demands custody and seems sincere then he doesn't have to pay child support.

OK, most of your post was reasonable, even if I had quibbles with it, but this is just silly. Support is determined by custody and income levels - you can get on your knees and beg the court for custody, but if the other parent still gets primary custody you will still owe support.

The US isn't that kind to women.

It isn't that kind to men either.

Still make less.

And men still ends up working more hours and giving more financial support. Imagine an alternate universe where a major part of a woman's attractiveness and social standing is based on her income, where girls are raised to to "suck it up" and "be a woman" means to be competitive, and where women are expected to be the primary breadwinners, pay for dates, and give expensive gifts. Don't you think they'd put more effort into work, and thus earn more in that world?

I'm not saying that there's not a lot of sexism in business, but not all of the "pay gap" is caused by discrimination.

Still lots of rape and sex crimes.

True, but at least they're acknowledged as being crimes:

Many places still treat the rape of a man as something to be joked about (rather than a crime). Boys statutorily raped by teachers still end up paying their rapists child support (even after she's convicted) - while men still get convicted of rape when the 16-year-old they had sex with admits that she showed the man her fake ID that said she was 18. And then there's the fact that women can use any type of deceit to get pregnant - not just pretending to be on the pill or poking holes in condoms, but even by giving oral sex with a condom and using the resulting "sample" to get pregnant, and the man can still end up owing child support.

And that doesn't included things like circumcision/genital mutilation - even taking a single drop of blood from a girl to symbolize an ancient ceremony is illegal in the US, but even jerks with no medical training can circumcise a boy (and keep in mind there aren't any medical groups, or any major studies, that show that circumcision in western countries has any significant medical benefit - plus there's no guidelines on how much tissue can be removed, and no requirement for painkillers).

And it doesn't include sexist culture like the "don't hit a girl"/"slap him if he gets fresh" advice, the idea that women "getting even" is OK while men should never consider such a thing - along with a host of other cultural biases (in the middle and upper classes of western countries at least).

Still a lot of chauvinist pigs who can't see the forest from the trees.

Yeah, it's amazing that some people don't get that sexism exist against, and hurts, both sexes. But in men's defense, we have come a long, long way in just three generations - and in women's defense, they can't hear what men don't say, and not enough men are pointing out the bigotry that hurts them.

Also, the gold diggers who have your kids and divorce you are numerically less then the stupid retards who insists condoms give him a rash and they should do it anyways since she's going on the pill next month.

Do you have numbers for that? (Just kidding). But you forgot to include the ones that accidentally-on-purpose get pregnant to get him to marry her, etc.

Re:Are you sure ...

[Opportunist]

Well, are you sure it ain't that way?

Both sides draw their power from the fight against each other. If the US stopped attacking Al Quaida, they'd have to stage another terror attack to "remind" the US that they got it in their contract to keep fighting, dammit.

And since such an attack costs, money, resources and people, Bin Laden (or whoever happens to be the head honcho now) is actually quite a bit better off when the fight continues without too much activity from his side. The US continue to "liberate" countries, the people get angry at the US and they don't even have to do anything for it 'cause it perpetuates itself.

Now imagine the Dems win and end that war. Do you think it's easy to steal two planes? That's some hard work, man!

Re:Are you sure ...

[ghoul]

If the man is responsible for the child he should have say on whether or not the child is to be born. Why does only the woman get to decide on abortion? As you say a woman doesnt get pregnant out of thin air so why does she get all the rights? Also traditionally a husband was supposed to earn the money and the wife was supposed to take care of the children and the house. With the advent of labour saving devices and prepackaged food the amount of housework has drastically dropped so why is the man still supposed to provide support in a divorce . In todays world women even with kids should be able to earn their keep and if they claim they cant as they have to babysit why not just cede custody? But women dont as they know Child Support is a pot of gold. Only about one third of child support is spent on the child itself the rest is used for leading a level of life higher than deserved based on basic competency.
What people dont realize is that as children have an instinctively stronger relation with their mothers it is very easy for mothers to use children against the father as a weapon. In traditional society this power was balanced by the fact that fathers would simply stop supporting children who are brainwashed to hate them. With compulsory child support this balance is broken leading to abusive behaviour by women without suffering consequences.
I have not said I would like to live in Saudi for my wife is a sensible person and I would never put her in the situation of not being able to even drive but the point is USA is not a fair society. Its an unbalanced society.

Now I will say something which will make the femino fascists gasp. Men are traditionally physically stronger but women have had higher emotional quotients. What this means is as long as there is no violence women always have the upper hand as they are better at manipulating emotions and using words to get their own way. Traditional society has balanced that by the fact that men who are driven to extremes by such pschologically abusive behaviour can respond with physical violence to balnace the scales . As there is a balance both kinds of abuse psychological and physical dont happen commonly. What has happened in US is by outlawing physical domestic abuse but at the same time allowing psychological domestic abuse (in fact even encouraging it by child support and custody laws) families have been made unstable. Thus except for the small number of extremely emotionally stable women and mild tempered men who form couples most American marriages end in divorce. If domestic sparring of a low key kind were legal the divorce rate would be much much lower.

Re:Obl.

[jcr]

Your question is fully biased and I am pleased to blow it.

Yep, you sure blew it all right. Your answer shows that you have no respect for human rights.

-jcr

Re:Are you sure ...

[evilviper]

A girl doesn't just "get pregnant" out of thin air. The man is absolutely responsible as well and should pay his share.

Unfortunately, "his share" is considered absolutely everything. Divorce law is so insane that men have absolutely no rights, what-so-ever. You will pay every cent you have in child support, and after that, will continue to pay alimony until such time that your wife choses to get a job or remarry... or not. Such is the situation even if the woman was a drug addict, and completely unfit to be a parent. Unless there is overwhelming hard evidence that the woman is a horrible parent, and the man would be an ideal parent, the woman automatically gets sole custody of the children.

What's more, the man doesn't even have to impregnate the woman... Even when paternity tests have shown the child to have been conceived with another man, the ex-husband will still have to pay child support for the children his wife got through her extra-marital affair. In an even more unbelievable case, a woman was able to discover the well-hidden identity of a sperm donor, and have him ordered to pay child support.

The USA has its faults, but if you think you'd rather live in Saudi because women in the USA actually have some rights and men are expected to pay up for things they were personally responsible for, then you've got some issues.

Saudi Arabia is merely another extreme. The US is almost as extreme of an example in the opposite direction, horribly biased against men. Yes, in the US, wives can (practically) beat their husbands with impunity, while any man doing the same, or even just defending himself sometimes, can be locked away for an very long time, and if the wife choses to file for divorce, will be able to use that as grounds to get everything from him that should could possibly want, without question.

I have no desire to move to Saudi Arabia... But this is a huge problem, hanging over the head of every man in the country. Does anyone wonder why the marriage rate has fallen through the floor?

Re:Unfortunately I see Reagan when I look at Sarko

[Stickerboy]

>10% unemployment in a country that held out until 5/6/2007 is quite a feat, and should not be discounted.

ROTFL... that's rich. Considering the unofficial unemployment rate among young adults is widely considered around twice the official 10%. And that any American President would be out of a job if US unemployment reached anywhere near 10% officially. Face it, the French economy is tied down with the ropes of its "social net". Look at all the trouble GM and Ford are in with overpaying their noncompetitive UAW labor in salaries and benefits, and spread that across a national workforce.

Re:Obl.

[yog]

... - considering that most people who currently pay this tax can afford it very well, - considering that most heirs do not deserve their good fate, and that many of them have already received a very significant heritage under the guise of privileged conditions at the beginning of their life (address book, healthy food and home, education, free housing, cars, etc... during 50 years...) - considering that I just paid some inheritance fees, mind you, and that Mr. Sarkozy will waste them in gifts to his really wealthy pals who escape most taxes thanks to numerous and cunningly designed-for-them fiscal holes, - I am all _against_ any suppression of the inheritance tax. The sole question as for me relates to enterprises being sold for cheap because the owner has died and the heirs cannot afford to pay the related taxes. Most of the time, it has not been properly prepared, but this should be addressed... This doesn't really address the pros and cons of inheritance tax. You're against suppressing this tax (which I guess in American means "reducing" the tax), and you gladly pay it because you feel it is for the betterment of society.

This is an idealistic attitude, but the unfortunate side effect is that a business owner cannot pass his or her business on to designated heirs without their paying a crippling penalty. This affects small family run businesses like retail stores, and is a major reason why so few survive after the owner's death. It's hard enough to make a living in a small retail business without all the confiscatory taxes and fees sucking every available penny out of the budget, but then to have to have it all taken away on one's deathbed is the final blow.

On a philosophical note, one is also presupposing that the State has the right to confiscate someone's wealth at time of death, a right which is highly debatable. If you believe, as many on the Left would, that wealth is an evil thing that is usually obtained through dishonest means, then inheritance tax is merely justice. If you believe, as most on the Right would, that wealth is the fruits of one's labor (or one's ancestors' labor) and one's heirs have a duty to maintain and grow that wealth, then inheritance tax is merely another form of confiscation.

Re:Obl.

[sumdumass]

I watched an interview with him on PBS and he didn't seem all that polarizing. In fact, what he said made a lot of sense and I would probably vote for him if given the opportunity.

A lot of the programs he talked about seemed reasonable and I especially like his open and honest personality. He acknowledge problems with the US relations and said he wanted to fix them.

Bottom line, France is a big part of the reasons we are at war in Iraq. If this guy was president back then, we wouldn't have gone in. There was a period of time were Iraq was doing everything possible to comply with it's obligations then France declared it would Veto and resolutions calling for war and then Iraq kicked the inspectors out. Even if france didn't support the war, keeping quiet in this one statement would have changed the entire line of history.

I guess that is what happens when you line your pockets with oil deals you used the UN sanctions to make at a discount. Maybe If france had not of sneaked oil deals in, Saddam and Iraq would have co-operated years ago and the entire last 10 years or so would have been completely different. It is time they got someone new in there and I'm happy with their choice.

Re:Obl.

[kdemetter]

you mean it has been abused as a motto . That doesn't make a statement about joy for working a nazi statement . True , his opponents will probably use it against him . but that's just the ill nature of politics .

Re:Obl.

[jcr]

You've made it clear that you regard a person's earnings as the property of the state, to be granted or withheld from the wage-earner at will. That is the antithesis of liberty.

-jcr