French wine boycott starting to hit hard

[Siddhartha]

I met a French wine sales rep before the war. She said that cheap competitors, Mexico?, were pushing French wine out of the US market.

 

[Corn]

I didn't mean it like that.

Which is exactly why you phrased it "like that" instead of what you *really meant*.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The French make superior wines, but not all French wines are superior. The 2000 Bordeaux is a superb vintage. If I were going for a chard, I would choose CA. Australia and some S. American wines are first rate too, depending on the variety. It all comes down to particulars.

 

[Michael]

I have only found one American Pinot Noir that is close to the quality of French Burgundy (Windward winery in Paso Robles). I'm not the hugest wine snob in the world (that would be my wife), but I can tell the difference in flavor - the French Pinot Noirs have multiple layers of flavor while the American ones start of stronger with lots of fruit but that's just about it.

As I've said before, my intent on boycotting French wines is to make sure the French do not get a "free pass" for their actions. France is a democracy and they're welcome to do what they decide to do. However, all too often they don't feel the effects of what they decide to do.

The boycott is starting to make it painful for a large area of French commerce and that is exactly what I intended. Sure the higher Euro and the recession has hurt as well, but the wine industry knows and admits that the boycott is the largest factor.

Michael

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Michael
I have only found one American Pinot Noir that is close to the quality of French Burgundy (Windward winery in Paso Robles). I'm not the hugest wine snob in the world (that would be my wife), but I can tell the difference in flavor - the French Pinot Noirs have multiple layers of flavor while the American ones start of stronger with lots of fruit but that's just about it.

As I've said before, my intent on boycotting French wines is to make sure the French do not get a "free pass" for their actions. France is a democracy and they're welcome to do what they decide to do. However, all too often they don't feel the effects of what they decide to do.

The boycott is starting to make it painful for a large area of French commerce and that is exactly what I intended. Sure the higher Euro and the recession has hurt as well, but the wine industry knows and admits that the boycott is the largest factor.

Michael

Well, it is your unquestioned right to do as you are. Thing is that using your logic, I ought not to buy CA wines, since I believe Bush did commit such a grevious act that anything the French did pales by comparison. That said, I still buy the CA wines, because I cannot think of how Napa Valley was responsible for this war.

 

[zantac]

My uncle just re-modeled his house, and built a wine cellar. He get 200 cases of French Wine for dirt cheap. I hope i get a few cases for Christmas =)

 

[flavio]

Originally posted by: Michael

As I've said before, my intent on boycotting French wines is to make sure the French do not get a "free pass" for their actions. France is a democracy and they're welcome to do what they decide to do. However, all too often they don't feel the effects of what they decide to do.


Michael

What do we boycott to make sure liars like BushCo don't get e free pass for their actions?
I'm going to have to go buy a case of French wine now.

But I really think it's the abundance of $2-3 bottles of wine at trader Joe's and such that's affecting the industry far more than anything else right now.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: Corn

I'm no alcoholic so they all taste the same to me.

That is one of the most ignorant things I've ever read. Alcoholism is not a prerequisite for a sophisticated palate. Why would it not suprise me to learn that to you, a Macdonald's 1/4lb patty tastes the same as a medium rare filet mignon from Morton's or Ruth's Chris......

Ruth Chris doesn't have the best steaks always. I have had WAY better for cheaper.

 

[Drift3r]

Anyone remember the Chinnese shooting down our spy plane ? Like someone else said this will be all but a distant memory to the drooling masses.

 

[Alistar7]

Business leaders in France push for a return to normal relations, at least they are consistent. They are all about the money, doesn't matter if it's propping up and selling out to a brutal dictator at the expense of tens of millions, or trading policies that contirbute to global starvation, nice to know you can always count on them doing their part......

 

[flavio]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
Business leaders in France push for a return to normal relations, at least they are consistent. They are all about the money, doesn't matter if it's propping up and selling out to a brutal dictator at the expense of tens of millions, or trading policies that contirbute to global starvation, nice to know you can always count on them doing their part......

Bush also pushing for a return to normal relations? Even as it becomes more and more apparent that the French were right all along and the American public was lied to by their leader you continue to spew baseless crap. At least we can count on that...

 

[Alistar7]

What exactly were the French right about? I would love a link to show they publicly stated they felt Saddam had fully complied with the Un. I can provide many where they advocated the repeal of sanctions though.

Their people were lied to by their own Govt. who made deals with Saddam and never stopped the flow of weapons or luxury items into Iraq. When the war started you know what was shown on french TV, injured and dead civilians, suddenly after working so hard to ensure Saddam stayed in power they were worried about the people of Iraq. What where they right about, they had it better under saddam?

Where is the evidence Bush lied about anything, the UK just finished their inquiry, they could not find any instance in which Blair lied about anything in the intel reports he was given, the same will be found for Bush.

Flavio why did the UN want to continue inspecting if everyone knew they were gone?

 

[flavio]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
What exactly were the French right about?

That invading Iraq was a mistake and that there was not enough evidence to classify them as an "imminent threat".

I can provide many where they advocated the repeal of sanctions though.

They were right about that as well.

When the war started you know what was shown on french TV, injured and dead civilians, suddenly after working so hard to ensure Saddam stayed in power they were worried about the people of Iraq.

You somehow believe that ShrubCo was concerned about the people of Iraq?

Where is the evidence Bush lied about anything,

All over this forum for starters if you open your eyes.

Flavio why did the UN want to continue inspecting if everyone knew they were gone?

To determine whether there was any WMD.

 

[Fencer128]

What I can't understand about the illogical "It was about the oil contracts" arguement - is that the French had a whole lot more to lose in terms of trade and retalliation from the US by not giving their consent, then they ever had by supporting a status quo. In fact, I'm sure if they'd agreed to US terms they could have shared in the rebuilding, etc. They would have known that if the US/UK/etc started a war there wouldn't be any question of them "losing" it.

This is why I don't but that arguemnt (that has since gone from being conjecture to somehow become the gospel truth) as much as I buy the arguemnt that they thought they knew a better, less bloody way that could have been tried before military action was completely necessary.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[burnedout]

Originally posted by: rudder
I am glad there wasn't a boycott on German beer.

Ain't that the truth. American Hefe Weizen wannabe beer is absolutely horrible.

 

[da loser]

Originally posted by: Fencer128
What I can't understand about the illogical "It was about the oil contracts" arguement.

This is why I don't but that arguemnt (that has since gone from being conjecture to somehow become the gospel truth) as much as I buy the arguemnt that they thought they knew a better, less bloody way that could have been tried before military action was completely necessary.

Cheers,

Andy

you're missing the point, iraq turned from gaining a sphere of influence for french, into thinking they could go toe to toe with the Americans in a multi-polar world. face it look at all the sources of oil, venezuela, nigeria, norway, saudi arabia, iraq, russia. which of those places lean to france? iraq, that's it, all the others support the us or represent themselves; sure you get some business for your oil companies, but when your economic sucks because oil prices are high who's turning on the spigot? the problem is the US is so powerful, it doesn't leave a lot of control elsewhere, so if you want influence you deal with people even worse with what the US is willing to deal with. they're tired of playing coalition partner ala UK, they're EU, the pride of the world...

and your second point about an alternative solution, what solution? the entire reason for the war was there was no other immediate solution. economic sanctions weren't working, because everyone thought if they were a little nicer, when it all went down they would be in front.

and unless you're willing to wait for the dictator to die or revolution, diplomacy is weak. The bush admin felt there was an immediate need, and didn't want to get the blame if another 9/11 happened. plus some have been wanting to do the whole viva la revolution thing in the middle east. france totally misjudged our urgency and fell in love with the peace movement. at least the democrats had enough sense not to get involved in the anti-US thing.

 

[Fencer128]

you're missing the point, iraq turned from gaining a sphere of influence for french, into thinking they could go toe to toe with the Americans in a multi-polar world. face it look at all the sources of oil, venezuela, nigeria, norway, saudi arabia, iraq, russia. which of those places lean to france? iraq, that's it, all the others support the us or represent themselves; sure you get some business for your oil companies, but when your economic sucks because oil prices are high who's turning on the spigot? the problem is the US is so powerful, it doesn't leave a lot of control elsewhere, so if you want influence you deal with people even worse with what the US is willing to deal with. they're tired of playing coalition partner ala UK, they're EU, the pride of the world...

I understand that - but I'm saying that financially they've a lot more to lose by not joining the coalition of the wiling, even in terms of oil prices. If the US wants to hurt France through trade I'm sure it have a bigger impact than one country's oil prices.

and your second point about an alternative solution, what solution? the entire reason for the war was there was no other immediate solution. economic sanctions weren't working, because everyone thought if they were a little nicer, when it all went down they would be in front.
and unless you're willing to wait for the dictator to die or revolution, diplomacy is weak. The bush admin felt there was an immediate need, and didn't want to get the blame if another 9/11 happened. plus some have been wanting to do the whole viva la revolution thing in the middle east. france totally misjudged our urgency and fell in love with the peace movement. at least the democrats had enough sense not to get involved in the anti-US thing.

Well, there was other plans that could have been tried prior to an invasion. France, Germany, etc. laid those out but they were all rejected. It is erroneous to say that the only thing on the table was the US/UK plan. Who argued that there needed to be an "immediate" solution and was "urgency"? Why could it not wait 6 or 3 months as in the alternative improved inspection regimes proposed by the French, German, Russians, etc? You can argue that there was no point in trying any alternative means or that Iraq was too big a threat to be left to any other possible solution for 6 months - but neither of these, as then, have been shown to be correct.

There were other options that could have been tried - but they were ignored and in a lot of cases people have either forgotten about them or were not informed at the time.

I'm not getting into this though as it has been debated ad nauseum.

Using the "it's all about money" logic I can't see how "it's about oil" out does "it's about our international trade"?

Cheers,

Andy

 

[Gaard]

I'd like to say something about the 'immediate solution' arguement. You all remember when it became clear that we were going to war with Iraq? (For some, it became clear many months before it became clear to others ) But I digress, what I wanted to say is that in the later months of last year, when it seemed like Bush and Co. were peering under every rock looking for another reason to add to their little list of whys, a great number of people were shouting "C'mon. Let's go! What are we waiting for? We must attack now!" But when you think about it, we didn't actually go to war for months...and nothing happened. Yet, there are people who claim that we needed an 'immediate solution' to this 'imminent threat'.