DoorsToManual From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 1, posted (10 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 1459 times:
No, it's just that those deliberately boycotting France are amongst the uneducated and childish of American society.
There is a huge and thriving American expat community in Paris, so it's not a uniform across-the-board boycott.
And frankly, anyone stupid enough to boycott France for its admirable independence and refusal to join a war in support of the US defence industry and little else, is probably not wanted in France anyway!
JAL777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 4, posted (10 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 1438 times:
Somehow I doubt this 80% figure is correct... I can tell you that loads on Air France flights to the US are not down 80% nor are they down 80% on any other airline. They might be down but nowhere near that and I bet it has to do more with financial reasons then anything else.
And I'm with DoorsToManual here, if your boycotting France because of their governments position, you need to get a life.
Cyril B From France, joined Jun 2001, 396 posts, RR: 3 Reply 13, posted (10 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 1354 times:
The real figure is 30%, not 80%.
On the one hand, some hotels and restaurants suffered from the lack of american tourists, but on the other hand, more british and german tourists visited France this summer, and most of the french decided to stay in France for holidays = the consequences of this "boycott" are very small.
Schoenorama From Spain, joined Apr 2001, 2440 posts, RR: 27 Reply 23, posted (10 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 1236 times:
And now, for something completely different:
"U.S. Opposes Resolution on U.N. Workers"
" The United States on Monday opposed a resolution aimed at protecting U.N. staff because it fears it could lay the groundwork for prosecutions by the International Criminal Court, but negotiations on a compromise continued.
The Security Council scheduled a vote Tuesday on the resolution, which has languished since late April because of U.S. opposition but surged into the spotlight following last week's bombing of U.N. headquarters in Baghdad.
It calls for protecting U.N. and other humanitarian workers — and prosecuting those who try to harm them.
The United States objects to a reference in the resolution to attacks against humanitarian personnel and peacekeepers being considered a war crime by the International Criminal Court, a tribunal the Bush administration vehemently opposes." (More at
The BIG question is, will the US veto the resolution? And if they do so, will this affect US Tourism industry?
Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!