France - American Sentiment?

[HobbieRogue4]

I'm curious what sentiment is felt by this community regarding France's stance against military action being taken to Iraqi soil. Specifically, I would like to see American sentiment, especially after my interest being sparked by Nod's "freedom fries" news blip.

[laputa]

The Grande Nation never had the same closeness to the States than the UK has. Although without France the outcome of the American war for indepence could have been totally different.
The French are not comfortable with the idea of having only one super-power in the world; especially not a superpower with a cowboy as president and a demeanor which could hardly be more arrogant.
Chirac kind of embodies the majority of the French. They are no pacifists but they don't see diplomacy at its end. More inspectors, maybe with a small UN force to 'freeze' the inspection sites would be more in their favor.

[HobbieRogue4]

I think for the most part, early American relations with other world powers can be disregarded (what with both England and France having been regarded very differently), but I understand very much your point of France's feelings about a superpower nation and it's spur-strutting leader.

I feel sickened by the two-faced position made by the ever-so-uneducated fellow American citizen though about the armament of Iraq - chief provider being France (or so commonly accepted). Seeing as American agencies and leaderships helped place several individuals in power throughout history that we can all say were "bad people."

But hey, clearly France is "wrong" for opposing America's current leadership (I refrain from saying "elected" either), therefore, we must change food names and disallow the French language to be taught in public schools.

P.S. Hi laputa

[laputa]

lo HR4

yeah, Frech wine and French water should definitely be banned from the US market

Iraq armament: Germany, France, US, etc. kinda everybody was involved. There are simply no angels in this conflict.

[Tactitus]

Originally posted by HobbieRogue4
I'm curious what sentiment is felt by this community regarding France's stance against military action being taken to Iraqi soil. Specifically, I would like to see American sentiment, especially after my interest being sparked by Nod's "freedom fries" news blip.

The "Freedom Fries" thing was just stupid. I don't know why junk like that gets any press or, if/when it does, why anyone takes it seriously. The store owner isn't an elected official. He doesn't represent any American's views except his own.

I have no particular problem with the French promoting their point of view. I happen to think they're wrong on this issue, but I try not to judge countries by their position on a single issue. France and the United States have a long friendship, and it will be remembered when today's problems are forgotten. Just over two years ago the headline on Le Monde was "Nous sommes tous des Américains" (We are all Americans). Truly we live in interesting times.

[HobbieRogue4]

Emotions certainly flare, but assuredly dissipate. Or so I pray. :/

[Scoot951]

I'm surprised that anyone was surprised. Did anyone expect the French to support us?

[Nixjim]

France wants to be seen as important. The best way to achieve that they feel is by controlling how the US acts. They do not care who is President or what he is doing, they have resented America since world war 2 when DeGaulle got his feelings hurt.
Personally I think they should try acting for what they think is right, not for what they think will make them look like they stood up to the all-powerful Americans. Germany opposes the war because they believe it to be wrong, France opposes it because we believe it to be right. That is my view on France. I respect Germany's opinion on the matter, I scorn Frances.

[HobbieRogue4]

Originally posted by Scoot951
Did anyone expect the French to support us?

Certainly President Bush did when he addressed the United Nations and subsequently the Security Council with propositions. A better statement would be many in the Bush Administration didn't expect opposition, rather than expected support. In lieu of September 11th terrorist attacks, the wave of support Bush carried among the American population probably was a large factor in his drive for broader foreign policy action - war.

Originally posted by Nixjim
France wants to be seen as important. The best way to achieve that they feel is by controlling how the US acts. They do not care who is President or what he is doing, they have resented America since world war 2 when DeGaulle got his feelings hurt.

An interesting statement. I'm curious, how do you figure the DeGaulle era can be carried over so far into present French opinion? I'd look to America's past leaderships as being a better reason for any anti-American sentiment among the French population - government or otherwise.

Personally I think they should try acting for what they think is right, not for what they think will make them look like they stood up to the all-powerful Americans.

Have you studied the reasoning behind France's position, or are you acting under an assumption? Perhaps France "feels" that it isn't "right" to attack Iraq for a whole host of reasons, ranging from civilian casualty levels to the possibility of a certain aggressor seeking more than just a "regime change."

Germany opposes the war because they believe it to be wrong, France opposes it because we believe it to be right.

To think that France's only reasoning behind opposition to UN support of American military action simply because "it is America" is 90 yards short of a field goal.

While I disagree with your opinions, I do appreciate your voicing them (especially because I'm under the impression that you are American).

Originally posted by Rick
I think its really tacky that they keep blaming the US for wanting to go to war for oil when in fact france currently has a large and lucrative contract with Iraq to get oil, as does Russia, and oddly enough those two are two of the only 3 european nations opposed to the war.

While that is somewhat true, every country on this planet is still too braindead to develop an alternative form of fuel that is economically-efficient. Can you or I blame them? I cannot, as it's more questionable what our own leadership seeks - look to our domestic policy regarding fuel. It's ****.

could it be that they dont want a war because it will disrupt their contract?

Possibly. I know I'd feel a bit of animosity, probably threatened too if another country was seeking to eliminate my source of fuel - intentionally or not.

At least the US has the decency not to do such a stupid thing as to promote lies about someone that are actually true about you. The ol' call your enemy what you really are.

If you are still in school (I hope), I sincerely hope you take a US History course taught by a more liberal professor rather than a conservative one. You'd be surprised to some of the things you're exposed to - simple truths that aren't so common knowledge as "Who the first president was."

Look no further than the Cold War era - from JFK to Regan, our leaderships aren't all touchy-feely-honesty.

but thats nothing to how pathetic I think it is how everyone who opposes it has swallowed the oil argument hook line and sinker, and actively spreading it to the point that "its true because everyone knows it"

Here's something I do agree with. Indeed, what's worse than ignorance is an assumption becoming a false truth. Do I think the sole purpose behind the Bush Administration's possible war with Iraq to be oil? No, absolutely not. But it doesn't mean it should be disregarded either.

Unless one is on "the inside" and in regular contact with the upper levels of the administration, we don't know for sure. It's all just speculation. What I do know is that accepting things blindly or for "face value" isn't a wise choice, not by a long shot. That's why I encourage further study into the things spokespersons for the Bush Administration tell the media.

But the mother of all is the people who demand proof saddam has WMD and yet refuse to believe that he has possessed (and not to mention used) them previously.

Those people have either a) been secluded from the rest of the modern world for the last 10 years or b) weren't born until after the events in the Gulf.

Or they are stupid, heh.

You have to be really really stupid to be a victim of this dumb of an argument. The worst part is that they act like they would be convinced if only we showed proof when they arent even living on the same planet because where they're from saddam never ever had weapons.

While I agree, any blame lies with the Bush Administration not being forthcoming with a whole lot of information "demanded." That doesn't mean they don't have it, that it's lies, or even if it's top secret, but for who-knows-why, they just haven't said a whole lot. But it's a risky thing, especially politically. Like it or not, people are inherently paranoid and when they don't know what's going on, they assume the worst. A lack of information and reasoning "why" military action against Iraq is needed beyond the redundant "breaking UN sanctions" and "crimes commited in the past" eventually means fk all to people if they don't have details.

I don't know what the Bush Admin. hopes to achieve by not being as open with what information and reasoning they have with regards to Iraq.

By the way, our environment is going to hell, our economy sucks sweaty nutsack, and our current leadership is the most conservative administration in America since 1890. I'm proud to be an American and to have the freedom to disagree with policy.

[Sandsnake]

Originally posted by HobbieRogue4
If you are still in school (I hope), I sincerely hope you take a US History course taught by a more liberal professor rather than a conservative one. You'd be surprised to some of the things you're exposed to - simple truths that aren't so common knowledge as "Who the first president was."

Your professor should be shot. Theres a fine line between Liberal and Crack-pot, and the entire "Washington wasn't the first President" argument has been shot out of the water by every respectable historian in the world. There's liberal, conservative, and honest. I prefer honest.

There ARE lies taught, but that wasn't one of them. Anyway, France isn't known for being exactly friendly with the US. Love-hate relationship thing. I don't agree with France's stance at the moment, because I beleive it is fully self-serving rather than out of any humanitarian interest.

France is known for being extremely uncaring in the world community. From neutron bombs, identities for terrorists, and commandos blowing up green peace's Rainbow Warror, They don't exactly have a reputation for being nice guys, and any sudden shift I hold suspect. The fact that they buy alot of Iraq's oil at very cheap prices makes it even harder to swallow.

[Gayle29uk]

Originally posted by Sandsnake
Your professor should be shot. Theres a fine line between Liberal and Crack-pot, and the entire "Washington wasn't the first President" argument has been shot out of the water by every respectable historian in the world. There's liberal, conservative, and honest. I prefer honest.

If you read Hobbie's post again I think you'll find he was referring to 'Who's the first president' as an example of an obvious question. It doesn't read to me like he was talking about Hanson and the other post-confederation/pre-constitutional presidents.

/me waves to Hobbie

[Sandsnake]

Originally posted by Allfather
The american actions outside its own country has always,and will always be for own gain. We saw it under ww2, we saw it with the invation of kuwait,and we see it now.And once in a while their own misstake come back to bite them in the ass, like in afganistan. Who got them the weapons in the first place?,heh.

Everyone's actions outside their own borders is for their own gain...if you think otherwise, you're an idiot.

Even regional stability is an outside gain. Hell, you could argue that everything anyone does for anyone ever is for their own personal gain. Remember, we're taught that good deeds make us feel good about ourselves.

[laputa]

Originally posted by Nixjim
Germany opposes the war because they believe it to be wrong, France opposes it because we believe it to be right. That is my view on France. I respect Germany's opinion on the matter, I scorn Frances.

That is a tad tpp easy. France's policy is not about opposing America but to do what they (France) feel right. The majority of the people in France and in Germany are against a war. Driven by that Schroeder and Chirac tried to find a common position to avoid the imminent invasion of Iraq. I don't think it is anti-American, it is simply anti-war and the most reasonable thing to do

[wu_trax]

france....

a) france wants to save its oil-contracts with iraq
b) the french population is against the war and the people would be really pissed if france would support it
c) france doesnt want to turn the nato (and the uno) as a utility to justify us-wars of agression
d) france doesnt want to be used by the us whenever the us wants to and left out whenever it doesnt, without having any influence at all (in afganistan bush didnt care about nato, and now nato does matter?)
thats about it.

germany...

a) schröder is a populist and will do whatever possible to get public support (although i have to admit i like his point of view more than the position of other german parties). we have no economical or strategic interest in iraq.


PS if anyone speaks german, this is a nice column about the nato, but im not bored enough to translate it :/

[menth0l]

I'd reply BUT YOU'RE IGNORING ME YOU ****

[Archi]

Greetings from the American Republic

The French were stung pretty harshly by the Suez Crisis then the revolt in Algiers. Since then they have tried to portray themselves as the Muslim's best Western friend (Ironic as most of the original Crusaders were French). Since then they have had a large influx of muslim immigrants (mostly from west Africa) and they now have a large muslim population. They have also harbored the Ayatollah Khomeini in the 70's from the Shah. If people think that US news is biased, from what I hear French news is twice as worse. With a mideast tilt against the "evil" Israeilis. On top of this add massive financial investment in Iraq and fears of the American capitalist "boogyman" coming in and upsetting the status quo. It is no wonder that the French are trying to block US involvement in Iraq. On the other hand the French are not what I would call evil. French soldiers saved American lives on the Ivory Coast a few months ago.

[wu_trax]

"the new eu-member countries have missed a great oportunity for shutting up"

- chirac

heh, how right he is. they should have stayed completly out of this. they want our money after all

[Archi]

I can't blame the Eastern Euro's they have had the Soviet Union telling them what to do for a generation. I do not think that they will appreciate France trying to take the place of the Soviet Union and dictating their foreign policy. Besides If they want to side with the US, who does Chirac think he is telling them to shut up.

Chirac must have pulled a page from the Don Rumsfeldt book of diplomacy.

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by Archi
I can't blame the Eastern Euro's they have had the Soviet Union telling them what to do for a generation. I do not think that they will appreciate France trying to take the place of the Soviet Union and dictating their foreign policy. Besides If they want to side with the US, who does Chirac think he is telling them to shut up.

Chirac must have pulled a page from the Don Rumsfeldt book of diplomacy.

and instead of france, they use the us to replace the su?
sure they can have their own opion, no problem with that, but in that case they should also ask the us for the monetary support they get from us :/
personally i dont think the extension is such a good idea anymore, after all they used the first opportunity possible to work against us.
they support the us-policy for the money, nothing else, because we are dumb enough to give it to them anyway

[Archi]

As far as I know the US is giving them aid as well. As far as taking the place of the SU. I would imagine that they like the US because they did a lot more than France (France did withdraw from Nato when the rubber hit the road in the 60's) to free them from Soviet oppression.

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by Archi
As far as I know the US is giving them aid as well. As far as taking the place of the SU. I would imagine that they like the US because they did a lot more than France (France did withdraw from Nato when the rubber hit the road in the 60's) to free them from Soviet oppression.

im sorry, but didnt the us agree to split europe in the middle in the first place ?
and it was exactly my point: the us gives financial support. if th3ese countries would stop supporting the us they wouldnt get any money any more. we are expected to pay no matter what

[Nusselt]

Originally posted by HobbieRogue4
I'm curious what sentiment is felt by this community regarding France's stance against military action being taken to Iraqi soil. Specifically, I would like to see American sentiment, especially after my interest being sparked by Nod's "freedom fries" news blip.

not having lived in america, or france for a substantial amount of time in the recent past, nor having any american or french to talk to in that big bad outside world, i offer my self as an expert in franco-american relationships with particular consideration to the british in all this.

Well 50% the country hates the french, why i dont know, probably because they are better lovers. This half effectively wants us to leave the EU and get into bed with america as the 51st state. They see the french as being surrender monkeys who are so caught up in their attempts to gain world influence that they would allow a dictator who could destroy the world to continue to live. The americans are interested in world peace and we should follow them since we are most like them.

the other 50% hates the americans and their incesant exports filling up the world. They consider the US goverment to be nothing more then imperialists and really really hate the weak backbone of the british goverment for always going with the americans in an attempt to gain world influence. They think that the french are perfectly reasonable in asking for a diplomatic way out of this and not allowing an american general to take charge of Iraq. They also think we should have closer ties to Europe so we can all 'stand up' to america and its hate filled cultural/global/economic imperialism.


There is a marginal 0.0000000001% of the population (Nodrog) who probably hates and agrees with each side equally.

no statistics can be backed up in this text

[Archi]

im sorry, but didnt the us agree to split europe in the middle in the first place ?

True, we could have left all of Europe to the Soviets. Would that have been better?

we are expected to pay no matter what

I would say the situation is similar to US/Mexican relations. In other words it sux to be you.

[the_dastardley_chihuahua]

Originally posted by Sandsnake
I don't agree with France's stance at the moment, because I beleive it is fully self-serving rather than out of any humanitarian interest.

change france for america and you get the setniment of a lot of people...

[deerbarn]

Is this the best time to point out that oppinion polls are showing us to be like 60% plus against the war>?

[laputa]

Originally posted by Archi
On top of this add massive financial investment in Iraq and fears of the American capitalist "boogyman" coming in and upsetting the status quo. It is no wonder that the French are trying to block US involvement in Iraq.

The French indeed regard Iraq as one of their main sources for oil, simply to have a counterbalance against British/American dominance in most other countries. However, the treaties between Totalfina-Elf and Iraq are not binding and they are limited to only two fields of oil.
The main consumer of Iraq oil is still the US (oil worth 5.82 bn $ were imported in 2001).
If there were economic reasons behind the position of Chirac he should focus more on the US than on Iraq. The US are still one of France's biggest trading partner.

Laputa

[laputa]

Originally posted by wu_trax
and instead of france, they use the us to replace the su?
sure they can have their own opion, no problem with that, but in that case they should also ask the us for the monetary support they get from us :/
personally i dont think the extension is such a good idea anymore, after all they used the first opportunity possible to work against us.
they support the us-policy for the money, nothing else, because we are dumb enough to give it to them anyway

every country has the right of self-determination (except when it does not match with my point of view )
Only because the EU is transferring them money they should stick to France and Germany? The UK is also paying heaps of money into the fund - so some of the 'new' Europe countries could say that they followed the politics of Great Britain.

[laputa]

Originally posted by Archi
As far as I know the US is giving them aid as well. As far as taking the place of the SU. I would imagine that they like the US because they did a lot more than France (France did withdraw from Nato when the rubber hit the road in the 60's) to free them from Soviet oppression.

Being loyal to France or to the US is not really a realistic choice. It should be Germany or the US. The ties of the 'new' Europe to Germany are far stronger than the ties to France; no matter if we are talking about culture or the economy.
This whole 'being grateful' thinggie is a different issue anyway and I highly doubt that it has anything to do with the stance of most of the countries involved on an Iraq war.

[laputa]

Originally posted by Archi
True, we could have left all of Europe to the Soviets. Would that have been better?

Hmmmm, hard to tell.

Russian Vodka > American Whiskey

Russian girls > American girls

hell yeah, why not

[Texan]

Individual French people are fine. The only French people I have ever known were soldiers. Allied soldiers generally tend to get along. You never know when an ally is going to have to pull your ass out of the fire.

I do not know any civilian French people, but one time I was in a small city in Normandy and I wanted to find a bar where I could drink beer and watch girls. At one point, I had a dozen taxi drivers around me and not one of them spoke a word of English, German or Spanish. I did finally find a place to get a beer, but it was a sports bar with very few women to watch.

Anyway, I have read a lot of commentary about the French lately in U.S. newspapers. A lot of the columnists seem to think that France justs wants to block the United States because the French are unhappy with the United States being the only superpower.

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by laputa
every country has the right of self-determination (except when it does not match my point of view )
Only because the EU is transferring them money they should stick to France and Germany? The UK is also paying heaps of money into the fund - so some of the 'new' Europe countries could say that they followed the politics of Great Britain.

ofc they have every right on earth to express their own opion, but is it really their own opion, or are they just scared they dont get us-money any more?? look at turkey for example, they got $20 billion to support that war. in that case every poor country will ignore the own population. poland got billions aswell.
other than that: what do these countries have to offer to support the war? some nbc-troops, which most likely wont be needed anyway, but thats about it. not even spain and italy have much to offer.
this whole thing becomes more and more nato vs eu. im sure that soone or later one of these two organizations will collapse. (and i hope that will be the nato)

yes, there can be good realtions with the "Imperium americanum". but to me its not a good relation if we just say yes to every decision the "Imperium americanum" makes. in fact that no relation at all, its just accepting orders. these new members of eu and nato should have stayed quite or decided which side they join.

[Archi]

"Imperium americanum"

Not yet m8, we are still "The Republic". Though if we follow history i.e. Rome, it will happen eventually.

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by Archi
Not yet m8, we are still "The Republic". Though if we follow history i.e. Rome, it will happen eventually.

not in terms of policy, not anymore. :/

[Sub]

Originally posted by Sandsnake
I don't agree with France's stance at the moment, because I beleive it is fully self-serving rather than out of any humanitarian interest.

Haha.

[Archi]

not in terms of policy, not anymore. :/

Hrm that has been said about America since Teddy Roosevelt, and the world hasnt blown up yet.

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by Archi
Hrm that has been said about America since Teddy Roosevelt, and the world hasnt blown up yet.

yes, but then there was a counterbalance, now there isnt, so most likely the world will indeed blow up :/

[laputa]

Originally posted by Archi
Not yet m8, we are still "The Republic". Though if we follow history i.e. Rome, it will happen eventually.

I don't think so. Although the US are not on the peak of its power the follow-ups are too close behind. The gap between the EU and the US is pretty narrow, be it economic strength or military power. Additionally the ties between these two are too strong to be seperated easily. They totally depend on each other. European countries following American orders is a scenario not very likely to happen. They are partners and they both gain a lot from their partnership.

Laputa

[Sub]

I think the 'arrival' of China might be the thing that saves the world really. Or causes it's destruction.

[laputa]

Originally posted by Sub
I think the 'arrival' of China might be the thing that saves the world really. Or causes it's destruction.

It will make it a tad more interesting for sure. I think China will become what Japan was in the 80s. The absolute economic superpower. They will kinda defeat the US with their own weapon: Capitalism

[Tactitus]

Originally posted by laputa
It will make it a tad more interesting for sure. I think China will become what Japan was in the 80s. The absolute economic superpower. They will kinda defeat the US with their own weapon: Capitalism

Capitalism isn't a weapon to "defeat" foreign nations. It's a win-win. I hope China's capitalism is wildly successful and they bury us with cheap cars, electronics and whatever else they can produce efficiently.

The only potential problem I see is that as the Chinese people gain more economic freedom they will begin demanding political freedom. Hopefully, China's authoritarian government will soon realize they are obsolete and will go quietly.

[laputa]

Originally posted by Tactitus
Capitalism isn't a weapon to "defeat" foreign nations. It's a win-win. I hope China's capitalism is wildly successful and they bury us with cheap cars, electronics and whatever else they can produce efficiently.

Actually I think it is a weapon to defeat countries. Economic success made the US the superpower it is.

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by laputa
Actually I think it is a weapon to defeat countries. Economic success made the US the superpower it is.

exactly. you still need money to buy all the nice things the chinese produce for you.
china has a lot of potential. it will be a though competitor in about every market you can imagine. especially if they keep this state controlled capitalism (other might call it slavery)

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally posted by Tactitus
Capitalism isn't a weapon to "defeat" foreign nations.

In of itself, no. But strength of economy through capitalism leaves the state in question with the power at it's disposal to do so, if it should wish. And it will come into conflict with other states. That's an inevitability.

[Tactitus]

Originally posted by laputa
Actually I think it is a weapon to defeat countries. Economic success made the US the superpower it is.

Economic success made the US a superpower, but that still doesn't make it a weapon. No country was "defeated" to make the US successful; in fact, just the opposite. Having access to US markets makes it easier for China to grow it's economy.

Originally posted by wu_trax
exactly. you still need money to buy all the nice things the chinese produce for you.

Yep; just as they need markets for their goods (they can't eat DVD players, after all). That's why it's a win-win. The only way the US can lose is if we get out of the game (e.g., move away from a capitalist economy, erect trade barriers, etc); but then the Chinese would lose out too.

china has a lot of potential. it will be a though competitor in about every market you can imagine. especially if they keep this state controlled capitalism (other might call it slavery)

Hehe. State controlled capitalism is an oxymoron. State control is the one thing that ultimately can--and will--derail China's growth.

[Cuddley_Battleship]

So what if they don't support us? Even if they did support us 100%, they still would send only a marginal amount of forces to help.

[laputa]

Originally posted by Tactitus
Economic success made the US a superpower, but that still doesn't make it a weapon. No country was "defeated" to make the US successful; in fact, just the opposite. Having access to US markets makes it easier for China to grow it's economy.

You got a point there. 'Weapon' simply wasn't the right term. My idea was that eg China will outperform the US in economic terms. They will not defeat them in a classical sense but they will surpass them (which can be seen as a defeat since the US loses its top spot).

[laputa]

Originally posted by Cuddley_Battleship
So what if they don't support us? Even if they did support us 100%, they still would send only a marginal amount of forces to help.

France is a veto bearing member of the Security Council. If they use it there will be no UN sanctioned war on Iraq.

[Vermillion]

Originally posted by Cuddley_Battleship
So what if they don't support us? Even if they did support us 100%, they still would send only a marginal amount of forces to help.

While disliking France is a common passtime in the US, so aparently is underestimating France.

They are the third largest nuclear power in the world, with a very capable, large and modern domestic military, they are the only nation in the world outside the US to have Supercarriers, and their technology, training and projectable force capacity is very significant.

Their equipment can compete with the best the US has (Rafale, Leclerc, etc). The Trigat is probably the best ATGW in the world, and the new EBRC will likely be about the best light armour in the world. The Rafale MkII, still in pre-production, is expected to rival the US made F-22 easily.

Obviously their force is much smaller than the US, only 1 supercarrier, only 500 MBTs and so on, but pound per pound ot is one of the scarier armies on the planet.

[MrL_JaKiri]

The French'll just surrender though

[Kåre Willoch]

Originally posted by Tactitus
Economic success made the US a superpower, but that still doesn't make it a weapon. No country was "defeated" to make the US successful; in fact, just the opposite. Having access to US markets makes it easier for China to grow it's economy.

Yep; just as they need markets for their goods (they can't eat DVD players, after all). That's why it's a win-win. The only way the US can lose is if we get out of the game (e.g., move away from a capitalist economy, erect trade barriers, etc); but then the Chinese would lose out too.

Hehe. State controlled capitalism is an oxymoron. State control is the one thing that ultimately can--and will--derail China's growth.

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

Trade barriers = what made the US get ahead in the world.

US (and western europe, we're no better)policy: free trade is the doctrine, only problem is the third world can't sell us what they want, for them it's trade barriers that is the reality. Damnit with our wages we can't compete :-)

Subsidies for industry is illegal for other countries competing on the "world market". US weapons industri is the basis for US-technologcal advances. Sponsored up the ass, and made you guys produce excellent computers, but don't go around calling it free trade.
FS, separate your capitalist religion from the facts.

Practice what you preach, but oh, that's not gonna happen.