The French have always been somewhat of an enigma in their foreign policy efforts - for example, they pulled out of Nato during the cold war which was very strange at the time.

The reality is that the deomcratic countries of the world have far more in common than in differences and need to focus there

Cheers

Listed at Advance

I wholeheartedly disagree with this book. They may have gotten a few of the facts right (eg. France not letting the US use their airspace when it comes to bombing Lybia) but the methods and the motivations for doing this are all wrong. The French have never had it out for the United States and their main motivation from before the nintenth century is to counter their old rival Britian. During the French and Indian War we were not Americans but English colonists and the British used Indians on just a grand a scale as the French. French occupation of Mexico had more to do with reversing the shrinking of an imperialistic Empire, and to hold on to the lucrative trade in Mexico (something that America itself has been guilty of- eg. "In the Eagle's Shadow", by Kyle Longley) And that any substancial foothold that France had on North America was either conquored by the British, or bought by the Americans.
France's modern stance opposite the United States might be out of a little jelousy that it is the US and not the French that has their hands in everyone's cookie jar, but mostly what it has to do with is the idea started by French Farmers who are against American's massed produced, geneticaly modified, and heavily subsidized produce industry. And when you compare French history, art and culture to Wal-mart you might get a little sting of loss for the good old days too. I have a degree in History and Franco-US relations and one thing that I cannot stand is a book that just happens to distort the facts for socio-political ends.