France welcomed African leaders to a summit overshadowed by the conflict
in Ivory Coast and by the attendance of Zimbabwe's President Robert
Mugabe, who has been banned by the rest of the European Union for
human-rights abuses.

Notably absent was Laurent Gbagbo, President of Ivory Coast, where
France has sent about 3000 troops to enforce a fragile ceasefire under
which the Government is to share power with rebels until elections in
2005.

It would have been risky for Mr Gbagbo to have been out of his country
now, diplomats said. The rebels are threatening to reignite the civil
war unless he puts power-sharing into effect.

The British strongly opposed a decision by President Jacques Chirac to
invite Mr Mugabe to the meeting of leaders and representatives from 50
countries due to start yesterday.

At issue is the dispossession of white farmers and the seizure of their
land by Mr Mugabe's supporters in what the Government calls a land
reform policy aimed at rectifying imbalances left as a legacy of
Britain's colonial rule.

Threatening to block the extension of sanctions against Zimbabwe, France
obtained a dispensation for Mr Mugabe to visit Paris for the meeting
when the EU reimposed the ban on visits by Zimbabwean leaders last week.

The French have argued that it is better to discuss differences face to
face. But diplomats said another factor was that had Mr Mugabe not come,
many other African leaders would have stayed away in sympathy.

Mr Chirac, on a diplomatic roll, plainly hopes the conference will
cement his reputation as a key player across Africa and not just in
France's former, mainly west African, colonies.

But critics say France should stop playing host to leaders who in some
cases are under investigation by international courts for crimes
including torture and genocide.

"I suppose the lunches and dinners will give these leaders an
opportunity to drink to the health of populations that are being
massacred," said the president of the Federation of Human Rights
Leagues, Patrick Baudoin. Another activist, Dobian Assingar, said France
"must stop laying out the red carpet for criminals".

Nigeria and South Africa are pushing to have Zimbabwe readmitted to the
Commonwealth after a punitive suspension.

Mr Mugabe was met in Paris by protests and an attempt by a British
human-rights campaigner, Peter Tatchell, to have him arrested over
torture and human rights violations.

Protesters waved banners saying "Arrest Mugabe for torture" and "Mugabe,
murderer" as he ducked into the five-star hotel where he is staying.

Police moved quickly to break up the demonstrations by force, in some
cases dragging protesters away by their ankles.

Tom Spicer, of Zimbabwe's opposition Movement for Democratic Change,
called Mr Mugabe's presence in Paris a disgrace.

"Mugabe should be ostracised from the international community. He
disregards international pressure, and I don't believe that dialogue at
the moment is an effective way to bring about the end to the regime in
Zimbabwe."

--
Direct access to this group with http://web2news.com
http://web2news.com/?rec.travel.europe

By now it should be recognized that France never does any action which does
not benefit its' own position. The popular press treats the French stand on
Iraq as some sort of noble effort. And they fail to report that France would
lose a lucrative oil contract if there is a regime change in Iraq. Also, an
invasion would find evidence of shipments from France, particularly chemicals
and machinery, that were banned by UN Resolution.

If you believe that France is on the moral high ground on this issue, just
take a look at History.

On Fri, 21 Feb 2003 08:54:34 +0000, Jerry Johnson wrote:

    > By now it should be recognized that France never does any action which does
    > not benefit its' own position. The popular press treats the French stand on
    > Iraq as some sort of noble effort. And they fail to report that France would
    > lose a lucrative oil contract if there is a regime change in Iraq. Also, an
    > invasion would find evidence of shipments from France, particularly chemicals
    > and machinery, that were banned by UN Resolution.
    >
    > If you believe that France is on the moral high ground on this issue, just
    > take a look at History.

Pot, kettle...

In article , Jerry
Johnson writes
    >By now it should be recognized that France never does any action which does
    >not benefit its' own position.

Following the example of the USA?
--
Marie Lewis

le 21 Feb 2003 08:54:34 -0800, dans l'article , Jerry Johnson a dit ...

    > By now it should be recognized that France never does any action which does
    > not benefit its' own position. The popular press treats the French stand on
    > Iraq as some sort of noble effort. And they fail to report that France would
    > lose a lucrative oil contract if there is a regime change in Iraq. Also, an
    > invasion would find evidence of shipments from France, particularly chemicals
    > and machinery, that were banned by UN Resolution.

You just stay in New Mexico, son, and let France ensure world peace.
That's a good lad.

{ snip }

--
Desmond Coughlan
desmond @ zeouane.org
http: // www . zeouane . org

    > If you believe that France is on the moral high ground on this issue,
just
    > take a look at History.

Actually, I think France is all about the OIL. They could care less about
anything else. While the US position has much more to do with Saddam's
past/current behavior and the weapons he has, and what he could do with
them.

Anyone with half a brain and any type of knowledge about this would know
that a War with Saddam will do more to damage America's Economic/Oil
interest
than good. A War will cost Billions/Trillions and much of Iraq's Oil
infrastructure will be
damaged. Any idiot out in the street screaming "No War for OIL" hasn't any
knowledge
of the situation.

Maybe we did help support this Jackass at one point, but at least we stopped
that nonsense and wised up after the late 1980's! The French still continued
to
do business with him long after to this day. Shame on them!

You give them too much credit.

I think defending their own country from an invasion might be considered to
"benefit it's own position" yet they even failed to do that.


"Jerry Johnson" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > By now it should be recognized that France never does any action which
does
    > not benefit its' own position. The popular press treats the French stand
on
    > Iraq as some sort of noble effort. And they fail to report that France
would
    > lose a lucrative oil contract if there is a regime change in Iraq. Also,
an
    > invasion would find evidence of shipments from France, particularly
chemicals
    > and machinery, that were banned by UN Resolution.
    > If you believe that France is on the moral high ground on this issue,
just
    > take a look at History.

Jerry Johnson wrote:
    >
    > By now it should be recognized that France never does any action which does
    > not benefit its' own position.

That might well be said about almost any nation - INCLUDING the U.S.!

In article , Jim Morris
writes
    >Actually, I think France is all about the OIL. They could care less about
    >anything else.
Now there is an American expression that always puzzles me. Should it
not be "they could NOT care less about anything else?"


--
Marie Lewis

plain and simple - the couintry is ful of morrocans and terrorists - French
are cowards because they feel a neutral position will keep a 911 out of
their contry.

no

"Marie Lewis" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > In article , Jim Morris
    > writes
    > >Actually, I think France is all about the OIL. They could care less about
    > >anything else.
    > Now there is an American expression that always puzzles me. Should it
    > not be "they could NOT care less about anything else?"
    > --
    > Marie Lewis

In article , hobart xaxinojo
writes
    >no
    >"Marie Lewis" wrote in message
    >news:[email protected]...
    >> In article , Jim Morris
    >> writes
    >> >Actually, I think France is all about the OIL. They could care less about
    >> >anything else.
    >> Now there is an American expression that always puzzles me. Should it
    >> not be "they could NOT care less about anything else?"
    >> --
    >> Marie Lewis
Then it is illogical.
--
Marie Lewis

le Sat, 22 Feb 2003 09:10:43 GMT, dans l'article , dajaxon a dit ...

    > plain and simple - the couintry is ful of morrocans and terrorists - French
    > are cowards because they feel a neutral position will keep a 911 out of
    > their contry.

I'd call you an 'asshole' if there were such a word.

Just after the WTC attacks, the French police foiled an attack on the
American Embassy in Paris. Hardly a 'neutral' position, you gibbering
dipshit.

--
Desmond Coughlan
desmond @ zeouane.org
http: // www . zeouane . org

Marie Lewis wrote:
    > In article , Jim Morris
    > writes
    >
    >> Actually, I think France is all about the OIL. They could care less about
    >> anything else.
    >
    > Now there is an American expression that always puzzles me. Should it
    > not be "they could NOT care less about anything else?"
    >
    >

Well, yes, it should be. But it's an idiomatic expression that's been
around for ages. It probably started out as sarcasm. But, it's in the
language for better or worse. LAnguage is only "piecewise logical". ;-)

{ hobart's newbie top-posting tidied up }

le Sat, 22 Feb 2003 10:23:18 +0100, dans l'article , hobart xaxinojo a dit ...

    >> >Actually, I think France is all about the OIL. They could care less
    >> >about anything else.

    >> Now there is an American expression that always puzzles me. Should it
    >> not be "they could NOT care less about anything else?"

    > no

Yes. To say, 'They could care less about anything else', means that it is
possible for them to care less. Ergo, they care.

The correct expression is 'they couldn't care less'.

--
Desmond Coughlan
desmond @ zeouane.org
http: // www . zeouane . org