In the Heart of France, Anti-U.S. Mood Softens

NY Times ^ | April 13, 2003 | JOHN TAGLIABUE

[Pharmboy]

ORLÉANS, France, April 11 — Patrick Lebel watched the television images this week of a statue of Saddam Hussein toppled in Baghdad as joyous Iraqis danced about and he thought, as Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld did, of the Berlin Wall.

"It was purely symbolic, of course," said Mr. Lebel, 46, a heating systems technician, "but I thought of 1989."

Julien Vazzoleretto saw the same images, yet his reaction was equivocal. "One tyrant less," said Mr. Vazzoleretto, 25, who is unemployed. "But at what price?"

Even after the collapse of Mr. Hussein's rule, French disapproval of the war is overwhelming. Yet conversations with people in this industrial city along the Loire River show that they have not been left unmoved by the images from Baghdad this week.

Many remain shocked by the bloodshed and destruction. Others said that in their circles of friends, rejection of the war was softening as British and American successes mounted.

Many continue to mistrust American motives and to defend President Jacques Chirac, who opposed military action. They contend that the war, rather than drying the swamp in which terrorism grows, might distract from that task.

Mending Relations

All those interviewed said France and the United States must not let differences over the war translate into a permanent divide, though they acknowledged that mending the torn fabric would be arduous.

Mr. Lebel staunchly opposed the war yet appreciated the removal of a tyrant. The words that came to his mind when asked about American motives were dark: "hegemony," the "imperial idea" and "guardian of the world," he said. "If something threatens you, you have to eliminate it," he said. "It is justified politically; humanly, less so."

Mr. Lebel said he remained convinced that alternatives existed to war like "the United Nations inspections, maybe freezing Saddam Hussein's assets."

America is mistaken, he said, if it thinks a military response to terrorism suffices without attacking social and economic ills that fuel militancy. "There has to be a political response," he said. "Terrorism doesn't come from nowhere, it's not the Immaculate Conception."

Yet he conceded that the British and American military success and the collapse of Mr. Hussein's government had already swayed some in France toward the American view, particularly conservatives, though sentiment could shift again if Iraq sinks into chaos. Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin warned against the virus of anti-Americanism this week; Mr. Chirac welcomed the collapse of Mr. Hussein.

Nicolas Poschard, a 35-year-old accountant, was less forgiving of the United States. "There are many economic dangers," he said. "Now you have to attack the whole world — Korea, Iran." No trace of chemical arms or unconventional weapons was found, he said, and broad swaths of Iraq lay destroyed. "Who is going to rebuild it?" he said. "We, the developed countries."

Nicole Keene is one of a minority among the French who says the war is justified. "I don't mean I was for it," said Ms. Keene, 59, the director of the local social security office. "But it was needed, in a sense." Mr. Hussein, she said, was no less a dictator than the former Communist rulers of Eastern Europe.

But she criticized the United States for being selective in the injustices it sought to mend.

"I see the Palestinian issue, why don't they intervene there?" she said. "The Americans have lots of interests in the region. Yet the Palestinians have only rocks to defend themselves."

The collapse of Mr. Hussein had led some in her circle of friends to soften their criticism. "It is one thing if you see images of a child in blood on the ground," she said. "Yesterday, people saw images of the statue falling. Now they're changing their minds. It is good."

France and America must mend their relations, Ms. Keene said. Mr. Chirac's obstinacy was grounded in a desire to spare France terrorist attacks. But, she said, he would find it difficult to take the first steps toward reconciliation. "Chirac has apologies to make," she said. "Whether he will, is another question."

Weighing Antiwar Sentiment That doubt was shared by a 33-year-old woman, employed at a shipping company, who bitterly opposed the war yet said she believed that the differences should not permanently divide France and America. "This is no good reason to question our historic ties," she said.

As for Mr. Hussein's fall, she said: "At what price? And why him, and not another?" Yet Mr. Chirac and President Bush, she said, "are grown-ups; we belong to the same world."

Mr. Vazzoleretto said Mr. Chirac had been driven by a mix of anti-Americanism and genuine antiwar sentiment. "He was not in favor of Saddam, but he wanted to work with the United Nations," he said.

Guillaume Percheron, 20, an engineering student, said he had believed from the start that war was justified. "The regime there was disturbing," he said. "I thought it was right."

While most people in France say the principal American motivation for war was oil, he said he saw it as a reaction to the terrorist threat. "Sept. 11 was sort of the drop that made the bucket overflow," he said.

Strains in French-American ties would be temporary, he said. As for Americans boycotting French products, he was skeptical. "I don't think you can resist our wines," he said.

[Pharmboy]

"One tyrant less," said Mr. Vazzoleretto, 25, who is unemployed. "But at what price?"

But, what would the continuing price be of just sitting and waiting, Mr. Vazzoleretto?

[Support Free Republic]

A Strong Kick To The Finish! (Leave The Left Behind)
	Finish Strong. Donate Here By Secure Server Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794 or you can use PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD- It is in the breaking news sidebar!

[UncleSamUSA]

The sad thing is that "the heart of France" and "anti-American sentiment" are the two things that the NY Times cherishes the most these days.

[anniegetyourgun]

As if Vazzoleretto paid any price.

[Right_in_Virginia]

"I don't think you can resist our wines," he said.

Guess again.

[anniegetyourgun]

"America is mistaken, he said, if it thinks a military response to terrorism suffices without attacking social and economic ills that fuel militancy."

And what would those 'social and economic ills' be? Saddam, Arafat, and Osama's sad childhoods? Or was it their terrible poverty that drives them? Or maybe....just maybe....it's their hatred of Jews and America....coupled with their willingness to use and abuse their people while they live the high life? And if the latter, how does one 'fix' their heart through political means?

Gad, I can't believe how sick the French and Euros are.

[Drango]

As for Americans boycotting French products, he was skeptical. "I don't think you can resist our wines," he said.

Wanna bet?

[ZULU]

Too Little, Too Late!!!

[Centaur]

Amen. We've done a pretty good job of resisting their whines so far.

[Pharmboy]

Ahhh....you beat me to it!

[johniegrad]

"One tyrant less," said Mr. Vazzoleretto, 25, who is unemployed. "But at what price?"

At the price of Iraq's debt to your country and at the price of your country's future oil contracts, but of course. These idiots don't even understand the reasons that their administration opposed this war. They are just as slimey as their leaders.

Many continue to mistrust American motives and to defend President Jacques Chirac, who opposed military action.

See above.

Mr. Lebel staunchly opposed the war yet appreciated the removal of a tyrant.

Let's just see if we can't get him to step down by non-violent means. It worked well for the last 20 years. Saddam is (was)a reasonable person after all. Besides, Mr. Lebel has no complaint here. Saddam was removed and this appeasing lackey didn't even have to break a sweat.

"Terrorism doesn't come from nowhere, it's not the Immaculate Conception."

Pseudointelectual fool trying to be clever with a concept he doesn't even understand and ends up making a further ass of himself in the process.

"There are many economic dangers," he said. "Now you have to attack the whole world — Korea, Iran."

Total non-sequitur and a gross exaggeration of the current situation.

"Who is going to rebuild it?" he said. "We, the developed countries."

Where did you suddenly get the team spirit from, Nicolas? Don't count on being involved.

Mr. Chirac's obstinacy was grounded in a desire to spare France terrorist attacks.

See number one, again.

While most people in France say the principal American motivation for war was oil

Sigh.

Really folks, reconciliation is not necessary. We don't have the time to educate you and you are not capable of learning. In short, you are too stupid to be our allies.

[SwinneySwitch]

"Many continue to mistrust American motives and to defend President Jacques Chirac, who opposed military action. They contend that the war, rather than drying the swamp in which terrorism grows, might distract from that task. "

Maybe if "Black Jacgues" could stop selling zee french wepons to zee swamp it would help dry it up, no?

And we will not buy zee french wines, monsewers!

[grb]

In the Heart of United States, Anti-France Mood Hardens

[Clara Lou]

In the Heart of France, Anti-U.S. Mood Softens

Wow, I'm just so relieved. It means so much to me to have the French like US. /sarcasm

[Truth29]

More pertinent perhaps is: let's just see if we can get Chirac to step down by nonviolent means. No more French produced or manufactured goods while he is in office.

[mollynme]

"Who is going to rebuild it?" he said. "We, the developed countries."

Don't hold your breath.

[BillCompton]

All those interviewed said France and the United States must not let differences over the war translate into a permanent divide, though they acknowledged that mending the torn fabric would be arduous.

Don't you just love the active voice of this statement. As if it is in the control of France to determine whether there is a permanent divide. They, the average Frenchman, seem to think that willing there to be no permanent divide is the important thing. It is a fundamental difference in the way the U.S. approaches things and the French. We in America listen to many things in many different ways and we are skeptical of most of what we hear. This is not the same thing as being cynical. When we are truely moved by something, it becomes real and we identify it as "true". The French are completely cynical and nothing is genuine. So they seek to redefine the current situation and spin it to their liking. They, being this way, expect us to behave in the same way. This is where they don't understand us.

[GATOR NAVY]

I really like Beaujolais Nouveau, but I'll live without it.

[Cicero]

Clearly the French still don't understand that you can't s**t in the punchbowl and expect everyone else at the party to ignore it.

[Drango]

And I like Châteauneuf-du-Pape but there are killer California and Austrialian wines that will do just fine...