Ivory Coast the French, the UN comparison to US, Iraq.

[Atokal]

No blood for chocolate! No blood for chocolate! No blood for chocolate!

Where are the mass protests in the streets of the world's capitals against
France's military intervention in the Ivory Coast?

This month, French peacekeepers in the former French colony launched a
pre-emptive assault against the Ivorian air force. They also interferred
with the internal politics of the troubled nation and sought regime change
-- or at least they have been accused of both by President Laurent Gbagbo.

They acted without authorization by the United Nations Security Council.

They violated both the UN Charter and the terms of the peacekeeping
resolution that established their specific mission in the West African
nation.

The Security Council did sanction their attacks after the fact. Nonetheless,
the French acted unilaterally, and only sought and received a UN cover story
later. There wasn't even a coalition of the willing. No Brits, Aussies,
Poles or Dutch to help out; just French troops, jets, helicopters and
armoured personnel carriers.

While the French have achieved their military goals quickly and easily, they
have failed to stop the destruction of much of the I.C.'s infrastructure.

They have been powerless to end a Muslim insurgency that controls half of
Ivory Coast's territory. They have stood by while schools and libraries were
torched, failed to prevent widespread looting and have even fired on
civilian mobs twice, killing as many as 60 Ivorians. And they have hardly
been welcomed as liberators by the locals.

Tens of thousands of Ivorians wielding machetes, clubs and long-handled axes
marched through the streets of Abidjan, the financial capital, last week
shouting "French go home!" and "Everybody get your Frenchman!" as they
ransacked French-owed businesses and residences.

Tens of thousands of immigrant Ivorians have been turned into refugees,
fleeing into neighbouring Liberia, Guinea, Burkina Faso and Ghana.

Who knows, perhaps we'll also soon learn that some fabulous national museum
containing world heritage treasures -- yet a museum no one in the West,
outside of a handful of archaeologists, had heard ever of -- was picked
clean thanks to French neglect.

All of this was done in the name of protecting French commercial interests
in the IC's lucrative cocoa trade (and timber, mines and oil).

So where are the campus radicals, the smug Western intellectuals and the
preening pundits with their accusations of blood for chocolate?

Where is their accusation that the whole thing has just been a giant
conspiracy to ensure French President Jacques Chirac's buddies in the
chocolate industry have all the cheap cocoa butter they want?

There has been no media talk of quagmire, even though the French have been
involved in the I.C.'s civil war for nearly three years. The French military
intervention proceeded for the first 17 months without any UN authorization
whatever. And the Chirac government has repeatedly escalated its troop
commitment from 500 in 2002, to 2,500 in 2003, to 4,000 earlier this year,
to 5,000 today. And the situation only worsens.

Where is their outrage at the inability of French forces to secure instantly
and perfectly every block of the Ivory Coast's teeming cities? Where are the
BBC interviews with Secretary-General Kofi Annan declaring the French
adventure "illegal," as he did concerning the Anglo-American invasion of
Iraq? Where are the letters from Annan to Chirac entreating him not to quell
the insurgency or crush the forces fighting French troops for fear of
provoking worse from the locals, the way he cautioned the Americans against
pacifying Falluja.

Let me be emphatic: The French have done exactly what they should have in
Ivory Coast. They destroyed the five-aircraft Ivorian air force after it had
bombed a French base, apparently by mistake, and killed nine soldiers. They
fired on an ugly Ivorian throng only after the mob threatened to attack the
country's largest airport, which the French had secured so jets could whisk
thousands of French nationals to safety.

What's galling is the way the French have done it all without any deference
to the multilateral consensus-building they so smugly demanded of the
Americans and British last year when the boots were on the other feet.

Doubly galling is the silence -- even complicity -- of the UN and the
international community, which last year so sanctimoniously and vocally
obstructed the invasion of Iraq.

No other nation has inserted itself militarily into African affairs in the
post-colonial period more than France -- nearly two dozen times -- including
on behalf of the murderous Jean-Bedel Bokassa, who proclaimed himself
emperor of the Central African Republic, and in support of the Hutu
government of Rwanda, whose supporters butchered half a million or more
Tutsis in 1994.

The truth is, international opposition to the Iraq war (including French
opposition) was prompted as much by bitter anti-Americanism and irrational
hatred of George W. Bush as it was by any true concern for peace or
multilateralism.

Will Michael Moore now rush to Yamoussoukro, the I.C.'s political capital,
to produce a "documentary" on the scandal of French unilateralism and
neo-colonialism?

Of course not. When it is countries and leaders they favour committing the
offences, the international left gives them a free pass.
____________________
Lorne Gunter
Columnist/Editorial Writer,
National Post
Columnist, Edmonton Journal

So where is all the belly aching about the Damn French??? Fucking liberals

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Because it was never about what is right or wrong. It has always been an anti-American thing. A few of us on this board have always known that. The lemmings on this board know it deep down inside too. It's sad yet laughable at the same time.

[Spankes]

Fucking liberals

wtf

[Akaran_D]

I thought it was a retaliatory strike after a couple of french soldiers were slain?

[vn_Tanc]

It's Africa so, like, who cares?
Right?

[Lynks]

Because it was never about what is right or wrong. It has always been an anti-American thing. A few of us on this board have always known that. The lemmings on this board know it deep down inside too. It's sad yet laughable at the same time.

I never heard of this until now so kindly go fuck yourself.

[Lynks]

I thought it was a retaliatory strike after a couple of french soldiers were slain?

Just read that 9 peacekeepers were killed, hence the retaliation. Whats wrong with that? How many civillians were killed?

Its not like the left were all cranky that you invaded Afghanistan, that was perfectly alright. I fail to see how this incident is related to Iraq though....ohhh, the imagenary WMD...right.

Edit: Just read something else that they went agaisnt the UN, which is wrong.

[vn_Tanc]

But seriously, where is the stuff about regime change other than the initial mention?
Where is anything other than a retaliatory strike and some crowd control?
5000 troops? That's fucking nothing. And they're UN bluehats even if they are French.
You all bray about shackling soldiers in the field yet that's exactly what would have happened here. They got rubberstamped by the security council after the fact - that includes the veto-holding US.
The peacekeeper charter prevent bluehats from interfering in the activities of the recognised sovereign government but I'm not aware of any other instance where those forces have attacked bluehats and not been attacked in return. Perhaps you could provide details?
The article is a pile of anti-French, masturbatory spin.

I'm more than happy to entertain the notion of the French having less than altruistic motivation down there but comparing the situation to Iraq is assinine. They're trying to prevent the insurgency not topple the government. They're not trying to set of a tidal wave of central african democracy. Et-fucking-cetera.

[Seebs]

I just hope they find a solution for the French ban on Bathing Soap.

If this ever escalates to violence between the US and France, I give it three days until we storm the French capital ... Quebec!

Brioche for the masses!!

[Lohrno]

If you're going to say that the US should not have listened to the UN then it's hypocritical to say that France should.

-=Lohrno

[Tenuvil]

Because it was never about what is right or wrong. It has always been an anti-American thing. A few of us on this board have always known that. The lemmings on this board know it deep down inside too. It's sad yet laughable at the same time.

Mid,

I'd respectfully say that in my opinion, people who back the war are lemmings, and those that oppose it are employing independent thought and critical reasoning.

[Lohrno]

I'd respectfully say that in my opinion, people who back the war are lemmings, and those that oppose it are employing independent thought and critical reasoning.

Naw, admit it there are some lemmings among us (well not us as in the people here at VV but those who don't back the war.) I would say that his response firmly puts him in lemming ground though. =D

-=Lohrno

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Because it was never about what is right or wrong. It has always been an anti-American thing. A few of us on this board have always known that. The lemmings on this board know it deep down inside too. It's sad yet laughable at the same time.

Mid,

I'd respectfully say that in my opinion, people who back the war are lemmings, and those that oppose it are employing independent thought and critical reasoning.

Both sides feel that way. Funny isn't it?

[archeiron]

Because it was never about what is right or wrong. It has always been an anti-American thing. A few of us on this board have always known that. The lemmings on this board know it deep down inside too. It's sad yet laughable at the same time.

As an American citizen and a member of the American democratic process, I have a right and a duty to see that our nation behaves as I believe that it should do. I do not condone or approve of the actions of other nations that believe in a similiar way, but I do not have the same responsibility to see that this sort of preemptive attack does not occur.

I disapprove of France's actions, as far as I have been able to ascertain from this article and a small handful of others that I dug up. I disapproved of the US's actions, as far as I have been able to follow them for months leading up to the Iraq invasion.

In addition to my disapproval as a private citizen, I have a duty as a citizen of the United States to make my voice heard in the US political arena (through my voting record, etc). If I had rights in France as a member of that republic, then I would speak my peace.

[Tenuvil]

Because it was never about what is right or wrong. It has always been an anti-American thing. A few of us on this board have always known that. The lemmings on this board know it deep down inside too. It's sad yet laughable at the same time.

Mid,

I'd respectfully say that in my opinion, people who back the war are lemmings, and those that oppose it are employing independent thought and critical reasoning.

Both sides feel that way. Funny isn't it?

Yup. Hence the unresolvable divide in this country.

[Rekaar.]

Because it was never about what is right or wrong. It has always been an anti-American thing. A few of us on this board have always known that. The lemmings on this board know it deep down inside too. It's sad yet laughable at the same time.

Mid,

I'd respectfully say that in my opinion, people who back the war are lemmings, and those that oppose it are employing independent thought and critical reasoning.

See that'd be your arrogance shining through again. Lemmings on both sides of the fence turbo!

[Nick]

Yeah Mid, I think it is funny that both "sides" feel like that.

I also think it's funny that the wrong side (the one that supports invading countries and killing innocent people and not allowing women to have abortions and not being able to seperate church and education and church and state and church and rigging the "land of the free's" election in 2000 and generally causing anti americanism to have a damn good reason to exist) is actually capable of deluding itself that it is right.

But yeah, sure, 60 million nazi's cant be wrong.

[Kylere]

Good God another European fuckup, I wish the US did not seem to inherit them.

[Kelshara]

Looks like the American retardation is contagious.

[Zaelath]

So where is all the belly aching about the Damn French??? Fucking liberals

Everyone already hates the French?

Does seem like a beatup though...

[Mak]

But yeah, sure, 60 million nazi's cant be wrong.

And that attitude is exactly why the liberal left is getting farther and farther out of touch with mainstream America. If you could even pretend for one year that you aren't intolerant, arrogant elitists you might win an election for a change.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

But yeah, sure, 60 million nazi's cant be wrong.

And that attitude is exactly why the liberal left is getting farther and farther out of touch with mainstream America. If you could even pretend for one year that you aren't intolerant, arrogant elitists you might win an election for a change.

Amen.

[Lohrno]

And that attitude is exactly why the liberal left is getting farther and farther out of touch with mainstream America. If you could even pretend for one year that you aren't intolerant, arrogant elitists you might win an election for a change.

But it's okay when the conservative right is arrogant and intolerant?

-=Lohrno

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

And that attitude is exactly why the liberal left is getting farther and farther out of touch with mainstream America. If you could even pretend for one year that you aren't intolerant, arrogant elitists you might win an election for a change.

But it's okay when the conservative right is arrogant and intolerant?

-=Lohrno

How you get that from what he said is so typical and funny. It's why you cannot solve a problem with a lib. Unless the question is, how do I make a circle?

[Lynks]

If you could even pretend for one year that you aren't intolerant, arrogant elitists you might win an election for a change.

But it's okay when the conservative right is arrogant and intolerant?

Reading is fun!

[Raistin]

who cares, they will all die of aids in 15 years anyways.

[Brotha]

And that attitude is exactly why the liberal left is getting farther and farther out of touch with mainstream America. If you could even pretend for one year that you aren't intolerant, arrogant elitists you might win an election for a change.

But it's okay when the conservative right is arrogant and intolerant?

-=Lohrno

Of course it's not ok, but what gets a lot of us is seeing quite a few liberals going around self-righteously talking about how "tolerant" they are while being anything but.

[Rasspotari]

But seriously, where is the stuff about regime change other than the initial mention?
Where is anything other than a retaliatory strike and some crowd control?
5000 troops? That's fucking nothing. And they're UN bluehats even if they are French.
You all bray about shackling soldiers in the field yet that's exactly what would have happened here. They got rubberstamped by the security council after the fact - that includes the veto-holding US.
The peacekeeper charter prevent bluehats from interfering in the activities of the recognised sovereign government but I'm not aware of any other instance where those forces have attacked bluehats and not been attacked in return. Perhaps you could provide details?
The article is a pile of anti-French, masturbatory spin.

I'm more than happy to entertain the notion of the French having less than altruistic motivation down there but comparing the situation to Iraq is assinine. They're trying to prevent the insurgency not topple the government. They're not trying to set of a tidal wave of central african democracy. Et-fucking-cetera.

no no no .. you got it all wrong, this is just evidence that opposition to what the u.s.a. did in Iraq is anti-american and not people thinking it was wrong.

[Zaelath]

But seriously, where is the stuff about regime change other than the initial mention?
Where is anything other than a retaliatory strike and some crowd control?
5000 troops? That's fucking nothing. And they're UN bluehats even if they are French.
You all bray about shackling soldiers in the field yet that's exactly what would have happened here. They got rubberstamped by the security council after the fact - that includes the veto-holding US.
The peacekeeper charter prevent bluehats from interfering in the activities of the recognised sovereign government but I'm not aware of any other instance where those forces have attacked bluehats and not been attacked in return. Perhaps you could provide details?
The article is a pile of anti-French, masturbatory spin.

I'm more than happy to entertain the notion of the French having less than altruistic motivation down there but comparing the situation to Iraq is assinine. They're trying to prevent the insurgency not topple the government. They're not trying to set of a tidal wave of central african democracy. Et-fucking-cetera.

no no no .. you got it all wrong, this is just evidence that opposition to what the u.s.a. did in Iraq is anti-american and not people thinking it was wrong.

You left out "cause they're jealous".

[Lohrno]

Of course it's not ok, but what gets a lot of us is seeing quite a few liberals going around self-righteously talking about how "tolerant" they are while being anything but.

A very reasonable answer. I doff my cap at you good sir!

What it all boils down to is this (and I should probably start a new thread about it) : Everyone needs to take a breath, slow down, and let's discuss the issues sensibly.

-=Lohrno

[Xorian]

French started ripost in ivory coast after president bagbo's (sp?) army striked a french military camp by air, causing 9 deaths.

French army is with the UN in ivory coast to guards a tiny "safe" aera, which is separating rebels and president's army. President has been claiming that france was here to overthrow him, hence the hate toward frenchies and the demonstrations in street.

You cant really say it is the same thing that USA did in irak or....

[vn_Tanc]

Damn right I'm intolerant.
I'm intolerant of intolerance, ignorance, prejudice and idiocy.

I'm intolerant of religious zealots imposing their rules on everyone.
I'm intolerant of people who unthinkingly believe the propoganda they are fed by their government, wherever they are.
I'm intolerant of people who discriminate against people for things they cannot change.
I'm intolerant of fucking idiots who claim they "see clearly" when all they do is spout reactionary tripe.

So I'm liberal and intolerant. If you don't like my lack of toleration for your insistence that people live the way you want them to, go fuck yourself.

Edit: apostrophe abuse. I'm intolerant of that too.

[Rasspotari]

French started ripost in ivory coast after president bagbo's (sp?) army striked a french military camp by air, causing 9 deaths.

French army is with the UN in ivory coast to guards a tiny "safe" aera, which is separating rebels and president's army. President has been claiming that france was here to overthrow him, hence the hate toward frenchies and the demonstrations in street.

You cant really say it is the same thing that USA did in irak or....

ehemm... this is clearly written by some liberal, probably european, very likely a french, reporter !

like they would have all the facts right, yah right. i´ll just keep listening to the real media, the conservative ones in the states thank you very much.
which, and i totally agree with, are doing the exact same thing as the united states did in iraq. making them twice as worse if anything because nations make mistakes, stop rubbing it in already, and just learn from them. france should have done that and not attacked those people in ivory coast.
christ the french are idiots.

[Kelshara]

I feel dumber just from reading that.

[Atokal]

Damn right I'm intolerant.
I'm intolerant of intolerance, ignorance, prejudice and idiocy.

I'm intolerant of religious zealots imposing their rules on everyone.
I'm intolerant of people who unthinkingly believe the propoganda they are fed by their government, wherever they are.
I'm intolerant of people who discriminate against people for things they cannot change.
I'm intolerant of fucking idiots who claim they "see clearly" when all they do is spout reactionary tripe.

You say you are intolerant of intolerance and then proceed to spout off about all of your intolerances.

Brilliant.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Damn right I'm intolerant.
I'm intolerant of intolerance, ignorance, prejudice and idiocy.

I'm intolerant of religious zealots imposing their rules on everyone.
I'm intolerant of people who unthinkingly believe the propoganda they are fed by their government, wherever they are.
I'm intolerant of people who discriminate against people for things they cannot change.
I'm intolerant of fucking idiots who claim they "see clearly" when all they do is spout reactionary tripe.

You say you are intolerant of intolerance and then proceed to spout off about all of your intolerances.

Brilliant.

LOL

They just don't see how hypocritcal they are. It's so sad.

[Lynks]

So how about a response to my post that makes you look like an illiterate fuck that doesn't take the time to read. Didn't you say you apologize when you find out when you are wrong, or was that just a BS line coming from typical you?

[Nick]

If you are going to call someone hypocritical to make yourself feel better, please learn how to use the english language and spell so no one else has to be visually raped by your lame attempts at one up man ship.

There is a difference between being tolerant to different cultures and being intolerant towards racist bigoted small minded warmongers. The people who cannot see that difference (brotha, Midnyte, insert spastic face here etc) as Tanc previously stated, can go fuck themselves.

You are asking people to be tolerant of mass murder you stupid pricks.

Also, on topic: At least France actually got attacked by a country as opposed to your shithole Jesusland, which may I remind went to war for UM NO REASONS APART FROM LIES plus without any attack on US soil by Iraqi's.

9/11 does not count, if you even try to use that argument you're on ignore forever.

[Lynks]

Damn right I'm intolerant.
I'm intolerant of intolerance, ignorance, prejudice and idiocy.

I'm intolerant of religious zealots imposing their rules on everyone.
I'm intolerant of people who unthinkingly believe the propoganda they are fed by their government, wherever they are.
I'm intolerant of people who discriminate against people for things they cannot change.
I'm intolerant of fucking idiots who claim they "see clearly" when all they do is spout reactionary tripe.

You say you are intolerant of intolerance and then proceed to spout off about all of your intolerances.

Brilliant.

The other intolerances are just other forms of ignorance, prejudice and idiocy...

believing propganda = ignorance
discriminate = prejudice

get a dictionnary FFS.

[vn_Tanc]

You say you are intolerant of intolerance and then proceed to spout off about all of your intolerances.

Brilliant.

LOL

They just don't see how hypocritcal they are. It's so sad.

I SPECIFICALLY STATED that I am intolerant then listed my intolerances.
How the fuck do you two abject retards fail to kill yourselves through stupidity at least twice a day?

[Lynks]

I blame the school systems for letting them pass so they don't fall behind and hang around the younger kids.

[Atokal]

You say you are intolerant of intolerance and then proceed to spout off about all of your intolerances.

Brilliant.

LOL

They just don't see how hypocritcal they are. It's so sad.

I SPECIFICALLY STATED that I am intolerant then listed my intolerances.
How the fuck do you two abject retards fail to kill yourselves through stupidity at least twice a day?

For fuck sakes look the wheel is still spinning but the fucking hamster is dead...

YOU stated that you are intolerant of intolerance.

If you are indeed intolerant of intolerance you should therefore be the most tolerant of people.
You are not.
You are a dick.

Further how could one kill themself through stupidity at least twice a day?

Something to ponder genius.

Cheers

[Brotha]

How about I list how some liberals are so "tolerant?"

Anyone who voted for Bush is dumb (ie low IQ), racist, a bigot, or all of the above.

Anyone who doesn't support affirmative action is a racist.

Anyone who is against gay marriage is a homophobic bigot.

Anyone who is pro-life is a religious nut.

Anyone who supports having "under god" in the pledge is a religious nut.

Anyone who is opposed to the worsening content of network TV (see Janet Jackson boob incident) is a backwards, prude, religious fundamentalist.

Anyone from the south who opposes gay marriages, voted for Bush, is pro-life, and opposes affirmative action...well I'm not sure I have time to describe all the adjectives that would be used by many liberals.

I could go on and on about all the negative stereotyping done by people who claim to be so "tolerant," but I think you all get the point. I'm not saying every single liberal believes all of those things (or I'd be guilty of the negative stereotyping I'm accusing others of doing), but it is really surprising to me how many really believe some or all of those things. Again, I'm not saying people on the right are all walking bastions of tolerance, all I'm saying is people on the right don't feel the need to go around with a holier than thou attitude constantly proclaiming how "tolerant" to those "uneducated, backward, racist, homophobic, bigoted, dumb, less understanding" masses.

[Xorian]

I r not french !!!! Damn it

[Zaelath]

How about I list how some liberals are so "tolerant?"

Anyone who voted for Bush is dumb (ie low IQ), racist, a bigot, or all of the above.

Not everyone, just most of them. They're his base!

Anyone who doesn't support affirmative action is a racist.

If you say so, makes for a lot of racist liberals then.

Anyone who is against gay marriage is a homophobic bigot.

If you're against the important legal parts of marriage applying to gays and lesbians, then yes, you're a fucking homophobe. If you just don't want them in your church, you're a homophobic zealot.

Anyone who is pro-life is a religious nut.

That's actually quite patently obvious once you get your head out of your ass and look at how this is only a massive divisive issue in the US.

Anyone who supports having "under god" in the pledge is a religious nut.

Or just a preservationist, a lot of people who claim to be conservatives are actually preservationists; they want everything to stay exactly how it's always been.

Anyone who is opposed to the worsening content of network TV (see Janet Jackson boob incident) is a backwards, prude, religious fundamentalist.

No, you're a nerd though, and the rest of the world laughs at your hipocrisy.

I could go on and on about all the negative stereotyping done by people who claim to be so "tolerant,"

I don't claim to be tolerant, tolerance is a conservative idea that goes thus: "I hate you, I don't know why I hate you, but I want to kill you all. However, I will allow you to live, away from me, with reduced rights and access, because Jesus taught me to turn the other cheek from you freaks"

Fuck tolerance, try a little acceptance.

And labeling something doesn't mean you're not "tolerant" of it, jackass.

[vn_Tanc]

For fuck sakes look the wheel is still spinning but the fucking hamster is dead...

YOU stated that you are intolerant of intolerance.

If you are indeed intolerant of intolerance you should therefore be the most tolerant of people.

What? I expressly stated that I'm intolerant. How can I then be tolerant?
Fucking tard.

You are not.
You are a dick.

The fact that mouth-breathing morons like you have a low opinion of me is a source of constant comfort.

Further how could one kill themself through stupidity at least twice a day?

You really broke the speed of stupid on this one.

Something to ponder genius.

We're all genii compared to you. Just stop now before you hurt yourself.

[Lohrno]

How about I list how some liberals are so "tolerant?"
....

There are only a couple of the things you said that I disagree with as being indicative of intolerance by the liberal side...

Anyone who is against gay marriage is a homophobic bigot.

There's only one argument I've heard against gay marriage that doesn't prove this to be the case 100% of the time. Even then it is only peripherally related.

Anyone who supports having "under god" in the pledge is a religious nut.

Well, who else but a religious nut would be for combining church and state, or having the government endorse one or one set of religion(s).

Anyone who is opposed to the worsening content of network TV (see Janet Jackson boob incident) is a backwards, prude, religious fundamentalist.

"Worsening?" That's too subjective a term to even have nice argument about. I certainly don't think 90% of the shows on TV are not pure crap, but I"m not for legislating to fight for that. Perhaps not "backwards prude religious fundie", but I haven't seen many valid arguments or ones that don't involve the imposition of personal morals on other people. Imposition of personal morals on others makes me immediately throw out any argument.


-=Lohrno

[Rasspotari]

I feel dumber just from reading that.

i hope you mean what tanc wrote and not me, what i wrote makes sense.
tanc is a liberal pussy !


ps. i am a flip flopper and i'm trying out republican this month, it's fun.

[Kelshara]

If that is how you are when you make sense I wouldn't want to see you most of the time.

[Cracc]

Ofcourse you are Xorian, and now VV know