<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>
<rss version="2.0">
<channel>
<title>Blogcritics: Comments on The Real France</title>
<link>http://blogcritics.org/</link>
<description>A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously.</description>
<language>en</language>
<copyright>Copyright 2005 by the authors</copyright>
<lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Feb 2003 19:26:11 EST</lastBuildDate>
<docs>http://backend.userland.com/rss</docs>
<generator>Blogcritics.org custom software</generator>

<item>
<title>Comment by Eric Olsen</title>
<link>http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/02/19/175551.php#comment-3654</link>
<description>I am relieved.</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">3654@blogcritics.org</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 19 Feb 2003 19:26:11 EST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Comment by mike</title>
<link>http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/02/19/175551.php#comment-3653</link>
<description>If you mean the Negri/Hardt book, don&#039;t worry. That thing is completely incomprehensible, probably even to the clowns who wrote it.</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">3653@blogcritics.org</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 19 Feb 2003 19:11:27 EST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Comment by Eric Olsen</title>
<link>http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/02/19/175551.php#comment-3651</link>
<description>That was very interesting and informative Mike - I actually meant complicity in much more recent banned or questionable business dealings with Iraq, but the rest makes plenty of sense. You do have that thing about &quot;empire&quot; though. I hope you didn&#039;t read that book.</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">3651@blogcritics.org</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 19 Feb 2003 18:49:13 EST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Comment by mike</title>
<link>http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/02/19/175551.php#comment-3650</link>
<description>Sign I saw at the SF anti-war demo: &quot;The French hate us because they&#039;re free.&quot;

Neutralizing domestic anti-war sentiment is one goal. More importantly, however, Chirac&#039;s is a conservative government eager to expand its global reach. Chirac is guessing that the U.S. is approaching imperial over-reach, and that Iraq may well break the bank. In that case, France would be poised to emerge as a mini-superpower to the developing world, obtaining strategic advantage cloaked as &quot;humanitarian&quot; intervention. There has been a recent increase in such activity by the French.

I doubt fear of history revealing past French complicity with Saddam is part of it, since France&#039;s role pales compared to the U.S.&#039;s (Rumsfeld sold them the chemical weapons in the 80s, remember?) 

Of course, Chirac&#039;s machinations could all be designed to secure better terms for getting Iraqi oil (it&#039;s all about the oil, baby), and France may well sign on at the last minute, as they did during Gulf War I. But even if that happens, I still think Chirac is betting on U.S. imperial exhaustion.  When empires seize and run territories directly, it is often a prelude to collapse.  Of course, past performance is no guarantee of future results.  </description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">3650@blogcritics.org</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 19 Feb 2003 18:40:20 EST</pubDate>
</item>

</channel>
</rss>