NationStates Jolt Archive

What's up with Jacques Chirac? I mean, by the way Americans talk about France, I'd think he would be a Socialist or something, but I just read that he is a conservative economic guy. He seemed, by what I read, to be sort of a libertarian type. (Except for the fact he agrees with the EU)

France doesn't seem to like him. I actually feel sorry for him. From what I've read about him, he looks like a good person with good ideals. So why does everyone hate him?

What do you feel about him?

Just another two-bit conservative

The French don't like him so much because he is a strong libertarian. To them he is too liberal, and too capitalist. France is a socialist country, and Chirac is a very capitalist person. That's the reason.

What's up with Jacques Chirac? I mean, by the way Americans talk about France, I'd think he would be a Socialist or something, but I just read that he is a conservative economic guy. He seemed, by what I read, to be sort of a libertarian type. (Except for the fact he agrees with the EU)

France doesn't seem to like him. I actually feel sorry for him. From what I've read about him, he looks like a good person with good ideals. So why does everyone hate him?

What do you feel about him?
do you know france? so if you don't i will give you a tip,He is not different than bush,but he is french,and toomorow if bush describe him as a communiste.i think i will come from mars

I don't like him either. He's done too many weird things over the years (if i recall there were those nuclear tests in the pacific in the mid-nineties... :rolleyes: ).

The French don't like him so much because he is a strong libertarian. To them he is too liberal, and too capitalist. France is a socialist country, and Chirac is a very capitalist person. That's the reason.

Makes me wish Chirac was the president here. At least he has a good social policy. Unlike Bushy.

I don't like him either. He's done too many weird things over the years (if i recall there were those nuclear tests in the pacific in the mid-nineties... :rolleyes: ).

He made them illegal. They (supposedly) don't do them anymore.

Makes me wish Chirac was the president here. At least he has a good social policy. Unlike Bushy.

I'd say Bush and Chirac are not really similar (except for the fact of being disliked), but i think Chirac is the lesser of two evils.

You forgot the ever popular "Chirac est une fucking grande fanoir" option in the poll.

Makes me wish Chirac was the president here. At least he has a good social policy. Unlike Bushy.
if you believe it then US does have a probleme,and of course is bush (like chirac)playing around.(with you)

do you know france? so if you don't i will give you a tip,He is not different than bush,but he is french,and toomorow if bush describe him as a communiste.i think i will come from mars

Chirac is not a communist. He certainly isn't. Although i can't deny the fact that since French revolution, French have the cliche of being some kind of 'primordial socialists'. :p

Chirac is not a communist. He certainly isn't. Although i can't deny the fact that since French revolution, French have the cliche of being some kind of 'primordial socialists'. :p
i know i'm french,and i know he is not communist.....it was sarcasm ;)

The French don't like him so much because he is a strong libertarian. To them he is too liberal, and too capitalist. France is a socialist country, and Chirac is a very capitalist person. That's the reason.

With France for an ally, who the hell needs enemies?

With France for an ally, who the hell needs enemies?

I don't think France has ever done anything to strike at America, and is directly responsible for the U.S existing. What more could you want in an ally?

So they disagree with you. They are a sovereign nation. That is their right.

You look down on their socialism. They look down on your extreme capitalism.

Who is correct?

With France for an ally, who the hell needs enemies?
well in france we can make a differeance between libertaire and liberal.in the us obviously not that is why you have neo cons

With France for an ally, who the hell needs enemies?

Seconded.

See, Chirac is a conservative by European standards. By US ones, he's a moderate socialist.

And of course, there is the fact that Chirac is a raging anti-American. Economic policies don't always determine alliances, you know.

Jacques Chirac is a bad president of France. He embodies every single negative stereotype about politicians.

When it was popular a few years ago he stood for lower tax rates; the removal of price controls; strong punishments for crime and terrorism; and business privatization. However at other times, he has argued for more "social" economic policies and was elected in 1995 after a campaign where he said he would reduce the "social rift".

On economic policies, he has at various times advocated both laissez-faire and socialist positions. More recently, he has noticed the way the tides were turning and he now speaks against "ultra-liberalism". This extraordinary bout of two-facedness is just on economics!

Chirac is also one of the most corrupt politicians in Europe. If he were not president, he would be on trial or in jail.

Chirac has been named in several cases of alleged corruption and abuse which occurred during his office term as mayor, some of which have already led to felony convictions against other politicians and aides. However, a controversial judicial decision from 1999 grants him virtual immunity, as current president of France. He has refused to testify on these matters, arguing that this would be incompatible with his presidential functions.

Chirac's corruption (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_scandals_in_the_Paris_region)

Chirac has also dealt quite a bit with Saddam Hussein in his time as Prime Minister (1974-76) and as President (1995-present). Prior to America's flawed, but ultimately justified invasion of Iraq, Chirac reassured Hussein that there would be no attack. His government's interests conflicted with the plans to remove the colossal human rights abuser Hussein.

And of course, there is the fact that Chirac is a raging anti-American. Economic policies don't always determine alliances, you know.
Especially when they conflict. Chirac is a Gaullist, all of whom are strong French nationalists. They are so arrogant that they can't help but appear anti-American.

And of course, there is the fact that Chirac is a raging anti-American. Economic policies don't always determine alliances, you know.

With Bush as president, very few are pro-American, and I can't blame em.

...Chirac is a raging anti-American...LOL...funny shit...

Chirac is Pro-Capitalism, he is the most "to the Rigth" prisident I have ever seen in France...a conservative hawk

he is not a raging anti-American...but he was put on the spot by Bush policies and by the inFamous "You are with us or aginst us".

Chirac political life is over and he is certain to be replaced by a more socialist president...much more likely to be a raging anti-American.

Jacques Chirac is a bad president of France. He embodies every single negative stereotype about politicians.

When it was popular a few years ago he stood for lower tax rates; the removal of price controls; strong punishments for crime and terrorism; and business privatization. However at other times, he has argued for more "social" economic policies and was elected in 1995 after a campaign where he said he would reduce the "social rift".

On economic policies, he has at various times advocated both laissez-faire and socialist positions. More recently, he has noticed the way the tides were turning and he now speaks against "ultra-liberalism". This extraordinary bout of two-facedness is just on economics!

Chirac is also one of the most corrupt politicians in Europe. If he were not president, he would be on trial or in jail.



Chirac's corruption (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_scandals_in_the_Paris_region)

yes he is and since 1986,so what ? i hate him like i hate bush like i hated miterrand,like i hate the elites and there followers.are you one of them?
do you believe in illusion?
ARE YOU FROM THE US?

Chirac has also dealt quite a bit with Saddam Hussein in his time as Prime Minister (1974-76) and as President (1995-present). Prior to America's flawed, but ultimately justified invasion of Iraq, Chirac reassured Hussein that there would be no attack. His government's interests conflicted with the plans to remove the colossal human rights abuser Hussein.

Um, even GW's dad helped Saddam. Almost every western country I know of has at some point. So what?

I don't think France has ever done anything to strike at America, and is directly responsible for the U.S existing. What more could you want in an ally?

The only reason why France helped the American revolutionaries was out of pure spite for Britain, not any feeling of friendship for the USA.

I'd just like to point out that France and the US nearly went to war in the 1790s. Despite there not being declared hostilities between the two nations, French and American vessels exchanged fire on several occasions. Then there was the infamous XYZ Affair, where French agents were actually spying on America, their supposed ally. The famous comment, "Millions for defence, but not a penny for tribute!" also originated from this period, when French officials demanded exorbitant bribes merely to see American diplomats.

During the Napoleonic era, America nearly declared war on France for infringing on the rights of neutral sea commerce. It was almost a coin toss, and in the end, Britain was chosen, thereby igniting the War of 1812.

Also, during the Civil War, Napoleon III was all set to recognize the Confederacy as a sovereign nation, and was only prevented from doing so because Britain's policy was more temperate.

During Gulf War I, Mitterand tried to entice Hussein to leave Kuwait by offering Israeli withdrawals from the so-called occupied territories in exchange.

Before Gulf War II, several Eastern European nations voiced their support for the liberation of Iraq. Chirac chided them, saying that they "had missed a good opportunity to keep quiet."

To conclude, I'd like to share with y'all a saying that's attributed to George Patton. "I'd rather have a German division ahead of me than a French division behind."

See, Chirac is a conservative by European standards. By US ones, he's a moderate socialist.

No, he is a moron by European standarts. It isnt just a question of him being left of right, its more that he has no spirit. Besides, the French only voted for him because of the second alternative was impossible. (Jean Marie Le Pen)



And of course, there is the fact that Chirac is a raging anti-American. Economic policies don't always determine alliances, you know.

A raging Anti-American? You mean that guy who was the first to extend is mourning to the USA after 9/11, the first foreign leader to visit Ground Zero, the leader of a nation that spent more time than any other crying "today we are Americans"?

Did the American give Saddam weapons?

i hate the elites and there followers.are you one of them?no Im not a follower...politics is not like Football (Im not a fanatic) I could vote for the Dems or the Reps at any level... yes he is and since 1986,so what ? i hate him like i hate bush like i hated miterrandso who do you want for Presdent?
who did you vote for last time?

A raging Anti-American? You mean that guy who was the first to extend is mourning to the USA after 9/11, the first foreign leader to visit Ground Zero, the leader of a nation that spent more time than any other crying "today we are Americans"?

Deeds speak louder than words. Sure, Chirac loves to talk about how much he loves America, loves the people, loves Budweiser beer, and so on. But when it's time for a little follow-up, he actively works against American policies. I don't begrudge him that; different countries have different interests. It's the hypocrisy that bothers me most of all. Maybe France fears the consequences if Americans were to finally realize that France is not to be considered a friend of the US.

To conclude, I'd like to share with y'all a saying that's attributed to George Patton. "I'd rather have a German division ahead of me than a French division behind."
that is why i was condemned to 1 year jail back in 1991,don't give me a gun. :mp5:
now i prefere molotov :fluffle:

The only reason why France helped the American revolutionaries was out of pure spite for Britain, not any feeling of friendship for the USA.

I'd just like to point out that France and the US nearly went to war in the 1790s. Despite there not being declared hostilities between the two nations, French and American vessels exchanged fire on several occasions. Then there was the infamous XYZ Affair, where French agents were actually spying on America, their supposed ally. The famous comment, "Millions for defence, but not a penny for tribute!" also originated from this period, when French officials demanded exorbitant bribes merely to see American diplomats.

During the Napoleonic era, America nearly declared war on France for infringing on the rights of neutral sea commerce. It was almost a coin toss, and in the end, Britain was chosen, thereby igniting the War of 1812.

Also, during the Civil War, Napoleon III was all set to recognize the Confederacy as a sovereign nation, and was only prevented from doing so because Britain's policy was more temperate.

During Gulf War I, Mitterand tried to entice Hussein to leave Kuwait by offering Israeli withdrawals from the so-called occupied territories in exchange.

Before Gulf War II, several Eastern European nations voiced their support for the liberation of Iraq. Chirac chided them, saying that they "had missed a good opportunity to keep quiet."

To conclude, I'd like to share with y'all a saying that's attributed to George Patton. "I'd rather have a German division ahead of me than a French division behind."
just a Canadian point of view...eh?
:D :D :mp5: :sniper:

The only reason why France helped the American revolutionaries was out of pure spite for Britain, not any feeling of friendship for the USA.

Not really a point of contention, after all, they didn't feel any malice towards America, and still helped them, even if the cause was out of spite from Britain.

I'd just like to point out that France and the US nearly went to war in the 1790s. Despite there not being declared hostilities between the two nations, French and American vessels exchanged fire on several occasions. Then there was the infamous XYZ Affair, where French agents were actually spying on America, their supposed ally. The famous comment, "Millions for defence, but not a penny for tribute!" also originated from this period, when French officials demanded exorbitant bribes merely to see American diplomats.

Ah, someone who knows colonial history. Damn. Well, spying on allies as well as enemies is simply prudence. It's a very gray issue, morally. If I was in charge of Britain in colonial times, I'd make sure I knew what everyone was going to do to the best of my abilities. Spying on my allies would be a way to ensure that nobody is telling me porkies.

As for the French and American vessels firing upon each other, did the French fire first, or the Americans? After all, if it was American aggression, you can't fault the French for defending themselves.

During the Napoleonic era, America nearly declared war on France for infringing on the rights of neutral sea commerce. It was almost a coin toss, and in the end, Britain was chosen, thereby igniting the War of 1812.

I hardly think that Napoleons empire is representative of the French as a whole, but I made an overgeneralised statement, so it's to be expected. As a question though, what are the rights of neutral sea commerce? is it simply French ships in international waters, impressing american sailors like the British did.... sanctioned piracy on American vessels? All?

Also, during the Civil War, Napoleon III was all set to recognize the Confederacy as a sovereign nation, and was only prevented from doing so because Britain's policy was more temperate.

I disapprove of Americas "once you're in, you ain't getting out" approach to the confederacy, Neither side was in the right over that war. France may have recognised the confederacy as a more "true" version of the U.S than the union was, and that would be an act of support for U.S citizens.

During Gulf War I, Mitterand tried to entice Hussein to leave Kuwait by offering Israeli withdrawals from the so-called occupied territories in exchange.

I fail to see how trying to find a diplomatic end to the war was an attack on America.

To conclude, I'd like to share with y'all a saying that's attributed to George Patton. "I'd rather have a German division ahead of me than a French division behind."


Patton was wont to saying things like that anyway. :D

no Im not a follower...politics is not like Football (Im not a fanatic) I could vote for the Dems or the Reps at any level... so who do you want for Presdent?
who did you vote for last time?
somebody who coudn't get 5000 burgmester/mayor/elites sigs

Um, even GW's dad helped Saddam. Almost every western country I know of has at some point. So what?
So... I criticise them all for helping Saddam. I'm singling out Chirac here because this thread is about him specifically.

yes he is and since 1986,so what ? i hate him like i hate bush like i hated miterrand,like i hate the elites and there followers.are you one of them?
do you believe in illusion?
ARE YOU FROM THE US?
No, I'm from Ireland. I also hate Bush and Chirac and Mitterand. I don't consider myself to be a follower.

Then there was the infamous XYZ Affair, where French agents were actually spying on America, their supposed ally.
big deal. America spies on Britain, and Britain spies on America, and there two of the closest allies in the world right now. Everybody spies on everybody, its just common sense to make sure you know what everyone else is up to

somebody who coudn't get 5000 burgmester/mayor/elites sigswe need a name.

To conclude, I'd like to share with y'all a saying that's attributed to George Patton. "I'd rather have a German division ahead of me than a French division behind."
This thread is not a vehicle for anti-French feeling in general. Patton was a fascist.

Not really a point of contention, after all, they didn't feel any malice towards America, and still helped them, even if the cause was out of spite from Britain.

Granted, but I was merely trying to deflate the argument that the French have been staunch friends of the United States since the Revolution.



Ah, someone who knows colonial history. Damn. Well, spying on allies as well as enemies is simply prudence. It's a very gray issue, morally. If I was in charge of Britain in colonial times, I'd make sure I knew what everyone was going to do to the best of my abilities. Spying on my allies would be a way to ensure that nobody is telling me porkies.

Ohnoes, someone who's a history buff! Speaking of not getting away with porky pies ... ;)

Can you think of any reason why France would need to spy on America? It's not like America during the early years was any threat. And if it were purely espionage, I could let that go ... it's one of the things that countries do. But trying to undermine American neutrality in 1793 (cf Citizen Genet), and their attempt to sway the 1796 election in favour of Jefferson -- surely that is beyond the pale?



As for the French and American vessels firing upon each other, did the French fire first, or the Americans? After all, if it was American aggression, you can't fault the French for defending themselves.

The French weren't defending themselves; on several occasions, they attacked unarmed American merchantment, even going to far as to torture the captain of one ship in an attempt to get him to admit that his cargo was British contraband.



I hardly think that Napoleons empire is representative of the French as a whole, but I made an overgeneralised statement, so it's to be expected. As a question though, what are the rights of neutral sea commerce? is it simply French ships in international waters, impressing american sailors like the British did.... sanctioned piracy on American vessels? All?

Rights of neutral commerce are traditionally to trade with whomever they wish, so long as they aren't carrying war materiel. Napoleon's Continental System was a direct contravention of neutral rights, but I think in the end the Americans declared war on the Brits because France couldn't enforce their violations of neutral rights, unlike the Royal Navy, which could and did.



I disapprove of Americas "once you're in, you ain't getting out" approach to the confederacy, Neither side was in the right over that war. France may have recognised the confederacy as a more "true" version of the U.S than the union was, and that would be an act of support for U.S citizens.

I also personally disagree with trying to keep the Union together by force. Though ending slavery was a laudable goal, it didn't emerge until after the midpoint of the conflict. In the beginning, when the war was all about states' rights, Lincoln was entirely in the wrong. Nevertheless, the French ought to have kept their noses out and let the combatants settle the fight on their own.



I fail to see how trying to find a diplomatic end to the war was an attack on America.

It takes a lot of chutzpah to offer Saddam concessions at the expense of a third party. The contrast between Israel's selflessness (making sacrifices and showing considerable restraint so as to avoid breaking up the Coalition) and Mitterand's opportunism is quite striking.

Since the war was a coalition effort, France ought to have stayed "on message," because doing otherwise endangers the group consensus -- and, as we saw, that Gulf Coalition was more fragile than most. Finally, it's my personal belief that negotiating an end to the conflict would only have let Saddam get away with his prestige intact, thereby increasing the risk that we'd be seeing further shenanigans within a few years. It was preferable to show the West's resolve and kick his ass. Smacking down one aggressor now to deter others in the future is preferable to letting one act of aggression go and then having to deal with more later on.

This thread is not a vehicle for anti-French feeling in general. Patton was a fascist.

Nor is this thread a vehicle for personal attacks on Patton. Unless he actually subscribed to a Fascist party's ideology, all you're doing is making an unsubstantiated assault on his good character and credibility. Besides, I included the epigram for its humour value. Sue me.

The bad relationship between France and the US is not something new, created by the Gulf War II. It has always been there, since World War II, (and as mention eralier before that) when General Eisenhower wanted to exert US control over France by supporting the Vichy regime to take control in France after the War. But Charles de Gaulle was to popular for the US to ignore, and the plans were abandoned. A part of that plan was to get hold of Algeri and french Indokina (Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos) Why? Vietnam is a land with a rich potential, and proof of that today, is that Vietnam is one of the fastest growing economies in Asia.
Then later, they created the Viet Cong, to throw the french out of Vietnam, which the US in turn was forced to face in the following Vietnam war, because their little puppets cut their strings off. Just like that bin Laden maniac and Taliban, also a US invention, to throw the Russians out of Afghanistan. And of course Saddam... All of them puppets, rebelling against their masters. So France refused to be puppet, so the US dislikes them.... that Democracy and freedom propaganda is just like the "White man's burden" shit that was used by colonial powers.

Nor is this thread a vehicle for personal attacks on Patton......
I included the epigram for its humour value. Sue me.

Patton was a clown... Sue me.

Jacques Chirac is a bad president of France. He embodies every single negative stereotype about politicians.

When it was popular a few years ago he stood for lower tax rates; the removal of price controls; strong punishments for crime and terrorism; and business privatization. However at other times, he has argued for more "social" economic policies and was elected in 1995 after a campaign where he said he would reduce the "social rift".

On economic policies, he has at various times advocated both laissez-faire and socialist positions. More recently, he has noticed the way the tides were turning and he now speaks against "ultra-liberalism". This extraordinary bout of two-facedness is just on economics!

Chirac is also one of the most corrupt politicians in Europe. If he were not president, he would be on trial or in jail.
Chirac's corruption (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_scandals_in_the_Paris_region)

Chirac has also dealt quite a bit with Saddam Hussein in his time as Prime Minister (1974-76) and as President (1995-present). Prior to America's flawed, but ultimately justified invasion of Iraq, Chirac reassured Hussein that there would be no attack. His government's interests conflicted with the plans to remove the colossal human rights abuser Hussein.

Especially when they conflict. Chirac is a Gaullist, all of whom are strong French nationalists. They are so arrogant that they can't help but appear anti-American.

Well said, i completely agree, most people fail to realise or discount the fact that he is a corrupt politician who changes his views to suit the trendy view at that moment

This thread is not a vehicle for anti-French feeling in general.no but...anything is a good xcuse to bash the surrender monkeys...

isnt it?

The bad relationship between France and the US is not something new, created by the Gulf War II. It has always been there, since World War II, (and as mention eralier before that) when General Eisenhower wanted to exert US control over France by supporting the Vichy regime to take control in France after the War. But Charles de Gaulle was to popular for the US to ignore, and the plans were abandoned. A part of that plan was to get hold of Algeri and french Indokina (Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos) Why? Vietnam is a land with a rich potential, and proof of that today, is that Vietnam is one of the fastest growing economies in Asia.
Then later, they created the Viet Cong, to throw the french out of Vietnam, which the US in turn was forced to face in the following Vietnam war, because their little puppets cut their strings off. Just like that bin Laden maniac and Taliban, also a US invention, to throw the Russians out of Afghanistan. And of course Saddam... All of them puppets, rebelling against their masters. So France refused to be puppet, so the US dislikes them.... that Democracy and freedom propaganda is just like the "White man's burden" shit that was used by colonial powers.

Why amricans doesn't know this? Fox news and New York times is controlled by Cheney... jsut ask yourself (you who are americans) why is dead american soldiers shown on my TV and not yours, why did CNN do a completely different coverage of the Iraq war in Europe than in the US.. The land of the brave and the free??? :p

Hello, ladies and gentlemen,

I think that only few people know (or remember) that when US 'libertors' comes on France during the WWII, the US governement plan to change the French money (French FRANC) to a more American money ...( DOLARD...!) and printed millions... ("We liberate you and in exchange, you buy our products, drink our sodas and our shitty food").

US doesn't work or fight for freedom but to dominate others so FREE country will always say NO to US hypocisy (bon désolé pour mon anglais, j'fais c'que j'peux...)

If Chirac is a socialist, Bush is similar to a nazi reichfürer. At the begining Chirac was one of the beat Bush Friend, and it's probably why he is stupid too.

Don't forget that people in a country don't necessarily want their president. It could be possible to like Chirac, and still dislike French people. Just like it's possible to dislike Bush and like Americans.

LOL...funny shit...

Chirac is Pro-Capitalism, he is the most "to the Rigth" prisident I have ever seen in France...a conservative hawk

he is not a raging anti-American...but he was put on the spot by Bush policies and by the inFamous "You are with us or aginst us".

Chirac political life is over and he is certain to be replaced by a more socialist president...much more likely to be a raging anti-American.
So what if he is a "conservative hawk"? (which I doubt) Hussein was a "conservative hawk" and I highly doubt his opinion of America was very high. And Chirac has consistently undermined and attacked the US, for example breaking his promise of abstaining on the final UN vote, or his crooked Food-For-Oil deals.

If Chirac is a socialist, Bush is similar to a nazi reichfürer. At the begining Chirac was one of the beat Bush Friend, and it's probably why he is stupid too.

Hitlers' "enabling act of 1933", Bush's "Patriot act", there you find similarities.... :p

"some times just I can't hold my tongue" :sniper: :eek: :eek:

From what I've read about him, he looks like a good person with good ideals. So why does everyone hate him?
Hey, anyone who is best friends with Saddam Hussein can't be bad...right?

:p

Hey, anyone who is best friends with Saddam Hussein can't be bad...right?

:p
Rumsfeld must be a saint then :p

Hey, anyone who is best friends with Saddam Hussein can't be bad...right?

:p

Guilt by association. Real mature. (Sarcasm)

Guilt by association. Real mature. (Sarcasm)
Here's a quarter. Go rent a sense of humor. :rolleyes:

In the beginning, when the war was all about states' rights, Lincoln was entirely in the wrong.

Care to explain why a state is more important than the nation as a whole?