Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
MaddDog

NY Post article on France/Ivory Coast

27 posts in this topic

I noticed this article from the NY Post today.... is it true that France is acting WITHOUT U.N. approval in this instance?? If so, why isn't the whole world protesting and yelling about what war mongers France are?? :blink: WHY are they IN the Ivory Coast while they tell us to stay out of Iraq??? Quels hypocrites is right.

Going It Alone

GOING IT ALONE

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Email Archives

Print Reprint

November 13, 2004 -- Quick: What Western power bypassed the U.N. recently, ignored the inter national community and launched a pre-emptive attack against the forces of a sovereign foreign government?

Why . . . France, of course.

That's right: French forces, acting unilaterally, deployed troops to strike the Ivory Coast's air force and took up strategic sites in the country's commercial center of Abidjan last Sunday.

Indeed, in what is being called a complete "overreaction," the French virtually wiped out the West African cocoa-producing nation's entire combat air fleet.

(True, that included just a few old Russian jets and some choppers. But what do you expect from the French?)

And, so far, the closest thing to WMDs that's been found is . . . chocolate. (It can lead to deadly obesity, n'est-ce pas?)

Which raises a question: Did that cowboy, Jacques Chirac, fear President Laurent Gbagbo's forces would attack Paris?

Chirac's troops rushed to war after Gbagbo's warplanes hit a French Army post in his nation. Nine French soldiers (and an American) were killed, but Ivorians are so outraged by the French "occupation," they've rioted, violently.

The irony in the strike by the French, who criticized President Bush's war against a real threat in Iraq, is, of course, hilarious. France did what it wanted (but don't expect U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan to call it "illegal").

The serious side is that France really does mean to continue its colonial influence in that part of Africa, and has essentially sided with the rebels against the government. You'd think the "world community"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The U.N. Security Council, meeting Saturday in emergency session, condemned the initial attack on French forces as a violation of a May cease-fire agreement, and demanded the "immediate cessation" of military operations in accordance with that agreement.

France, the statement said, was authorized to use "all necessary means" to carry out that directive."

BTW - The United States is a primary member of the Security Council.

You get your news from the Post?

Edited by Don

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"The U.N. Security Council, meeting Saturday in emergency session, condemned the initial attack on French forces as a violation of a May cease-fire agreement, and demanded the "immediate cessation" of military operations in accordance with that agreement.

France, the statement said, was authorized to use "all necessary means" to carry out that directive."

BTW - The United States is a primary member of the Security Council.

You get your news from the Post?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In case you didn't notice, I asked if it WAS true. :angry: I didn't assume it was. I read ALL sorts of news, not just the Post.

I find it interesting that U.N. doesn't mind letting France do what they want but some select Security Council members obviously didn't want us going into Iraq. You can also argue that France has gone overboard with the force (blowing up all the helicopters/jets of their military, kiling civilians) and that is partly why there's so much violence right now in the Ivory Coast.

I DO still think La France are a bunch of hypocrites, though. WHY are they even in Ivory Coast to begin with? Oh, that's right, they invaded years ago, colonized it, took the cocoa, and caused this mess that exists. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"The U.N. Security Council, meeting Saturday in emergency session, condemned the initial attack on French forces as a violation of a May cease-fire agreement, and demanded the "immediate cessation" of military operations in accordance with that agreement.

France, the statement said, was authorized to use "all necessary means" to carry out that directive."

BTW - The United States is a primary member of the Security Council.

You get your news from the Post?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why does it matter where she got the article from :rolleyes:? Because you want to defend a bunch of hypocrites?

My guess is it's true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How long till France surrenders?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

as soon as Germany invades

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"The U.N. Security Council, meeting Saturday in emergency session, condemned the initial attack on French forces as a violation of a May cease-fire agreement, and demanded the "immediate cessation" of military operations in accordance with that agreement.

France, the statement said, was authorized to use "all necessary means" to carry out that directive."

BTW - The United States is a primary member of the Security Council.

You get your news from the Post?

Why does it matter where she got the article from :rolleyes:? Because you want to defend a bunch of hypocrites?

My guess is it's true.

Your guess is that what is true?

As for me questioning the source, people all over - from the right the left, the up, the down... all poke fun at the Post's accuracy (or lack thereof).

Post cover

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Big deal! You mocked MaddDog's post because you didn't approve of it. So, you took a shot at her because you didn't like her source. The Post is still a paper. Sure, their headlines can be outrageous. But that's mostly on the sports backpage. Not the news one. They can't take as many risks on news stories.

Maybe you should have considered that before you made your post.

And another thing... posting that stupid cover proves nothing. Papers can make mistakes. That was an early edition issue.

I get you though. Anything to defend France. When they launch an attack without U.N. approval, "it's okay in your book."

Sorry. But that does make them hypocrites.

Edited by Derek21

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure I get it.

There are U.N. peacekeepers and French troops in the Ivory Coast. They were attacked and are retaliating. The United Nations Security Council, INCLUDING THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, are backing their actions.

I'm not backing France. I don't know enough about the situation to back anyone. I was correcting a factual error.

Maddog posted an editorial and then went into "Quel hypocrites is right." and I posted a rebuttal article from CNN stating that France (A) were responding to attacks on themselves and the Belgians, Germans and Lebanese peacekeepers and (B) had run this by the Security Council and gotten approval for their actions. Maybe I shouldn't do this. Maybe I should let you wallow in your hatred of France. I stand corrected.

Note to self: "Never post factual corrections".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol:

How long have you wait to have the pleasure to say more hatred about France ? :rofl:

France haven't done anything without UN concil decision...

All country back "us" in this sad story

they invaded years ago, colonized it, took the cocoa, and caused this mess that exists

I agree with that... but You are gifted for mix all History...

call "us" hypocrite... nevermind ! i can live with that :P

Just be stupid, insulting and brainless to speak about German invasion or french surrender... keep insulting my grand father memory, keep all that...

You don't know anything about "no- Beeeaaaautiiiiiifuuuul Land of the Free the beeeeaaaaaauuuuufiiiiifuuuull United States of aaaameerrriiiicaaaa"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just be stupid, insulting and brainless to speak about German invasion or french surrender... keep insulting my grand father memory,

:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
France haven't done anything without UN concil decision...

All country back "us" in this sad story

So even the U.S. supported you, whereas France could NOT bother to support us in Iraq and even BACKSTABBED us on purpose (trying to bribe African nations to vote against us). I guess U.S. is nicer than France this time, eh? :D Note, I'm referring to the government, NOT the French people, so this has nothing to do with hatred for France. I don't hate France at all.

they invaded years ago, colonized it, took the cocoa, and caused this mess that exists

I agree with that... but You are gifted for mix all History...

call "us" hypocrite... nevermind ! i can live with that :P

Just be stupid, insulting and brainless to speak about German invasion or french surrender... keep insulting my grand father memory, keep all that...

I don't believe you'll see me writing about surrending or Vichy government or anything. That happened 60 or more years ago. I was more referring to MODERN DAY behavior, and France has been acting hypocritical, that's all. If U.S. had vetoed the action in Ivory Coast while we are in Iraq, then OUI, I'd say U.S. government were being hypocrites too.

I just find it amusing how sometimes Europeans/Canadians get SO upset when Americans dare to criticize their government/foreign policy, yet some Europeans or Canadians often cannot wait to critique something the U.S. does. It's like America bashing is en vogue, and everyone should join in, but America can't respond or anything?? :noclue: Frankly I think alot of us are just fed up with hearing the constant Bush hatred spew from overseas and non-stop bashing of our country, even those of us who DO NOT like Bushwhacker. It gets really tiresome and I'm quite sure you wouldn't want to be hearing about how awful and evil Chirac/France is every second too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, you can't respond with false allegations. You were criticizing Frances actions with completely wrong information.

I was actually thinking much the same thing when I read this thread - some Americans are so quick to find fault with other nations, looking for reasons to dislike them, that they will grasp onto even the most transparent of lies.

And Iraq/Ivory Coast isn't a tit-for-tat.

The reasons that the U.S. put to the U.N. for invading were WMD & links to 9/11.

The reasons that France put to the U.N. for increase military intervention in Ivory Coast is because (a) the current U.N. mission to prevent civil war from breaking out required increased troops given the violence, and (b) French civilians are being targetted... French women are being beaten, raped, left for dead while French men are having their heads cut off with machettes.

The case for the Ivory Coast was so cut and dry that it took 1 day for the U.N. to give their backing to France.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, you can't respond with false allegations. You were criticizing Frances actions with completely wrong information

Nice try, WRONG. Re-read my original post which asked if the lack of U.N. approval was true or not. Did I ASSUME it was?? NO. Where were the false allegations again?

I was actually thinking much the same thing when I read this thread - some Americans are so quick to find fault with other nations, looking for reasons to dislike them, that they will grasp onto even the most transparent of lies.

Funny, that's how alot of Americans feel about other countries. Yes, this includes DEMOCRAT friends of mine. Other nations are so quick to judge us but they don't seem to like it when we do the same to them, eh? I personally think ALL governments in all countries do things in their own self-interest, it just seems like the U.S. is about the ONLY Westernized nation that gets alot of flak for it.

The reasons that the U.S. put to the U.N. for invading were WMD & links to 9/11. The reasons that France put to the U.N. for increase military intervention in Ivory Coast is because (a) the current U.N. mission to prevent civil war from breaking out required increased troops given the violence, and (b) French civilians are being targetted... French women are being beaten, raped, left for dead while French men are having their heads cut off with machettes.

Hmm, so the U.S. government said they wanted to go into Iraq to PROTECT AMERICA and to SAVE the Iraqis from Saddam? You neglect to mention that Bush DID mention the human rights abuses as one reason to go in, he didn't just mention ONLY WMD. How is that much different from the argument above? I actually don't have any issue with U.N. approval for the Ivory Coast issue, but it's just ironic how U.S. wasn't given the same courtesy by France for obvious reasons (oil for food scandal deals).

France blows up the Ivorian air force and kills many civilians after 9 French soldiers were killed; I wonder how they'd respond if 3,000 people perished as la Tour Eiffel and le Palais de l'Elysee got vaporized??? :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another article I found...... seems there is alot of concern even IN FRANCE over WHY the hell France is in Ivory Coast in the first place!!! Btw, I believe this is a Scottish newspaper, so no one can accuse me of it being Fox News. :lol:

flame away :lol:

Sunday Herald - 14 November 2004

With nine soldiers dead and a former colony in chaos, the French have one simple question. Why? Hugh Schofield in Paris reports

Last Wednesday, on the the eve of Armistice Day, President Jacques Chirac presided over a moving ceremony in Les Invalides, the hospice-cum-church-cum-museum in central Paris which is the French military

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
France blows up the Ivorian air force and kills many civilians after 9  French soldiers were killed; I wonder how they'd respond if 3,000 people perished as la Tour Eiffel and le Palais de l'Elysee got vaporized???  :blink:

Is that an insinuation that Iraq was in on 9/11?

Maybe the question is - if Ivory Coast want to have a civil war and kill everyone, maybe the French, Belgians, Germans and Lebanese should get the heck out of there and let them kill each other. I suppose the French are contributing more troops to stop the war since they have more businesses there, thus have a financial interest in keeping peace in the region.

Maybe I'm reading this all wrong, but I think the Ivory Coast government want France out as much as the rebels do. The rebels want them out because they want a war so they can overthrow the government. The government wants France out so they can crush the rebels.

As for the "wrong", yeah, right. You insinuated that it was true and even included a "Quel hypocrites" for measure. You can't whisper "There could be a" and then yell "FIRE IN THE THEATRE" and tell the cops that you said "there COULD be a fire in the theatre".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 'Quels Hypocrites' at the end was from the article itself. And France IS hypocrtical regardless of whether they had just cause for going into the Ivory Coast or not. They protested the US involvement in Iraq in part because of our supposed self-interest (among other things) and then it turns out they had their own self-interest in the form of sweetheart oil deals with Saddam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No... re-read what Maddog wrote in the very first post. "Quel hypocrites is right" is by her.

You are correct... France's opposition to the war in Iraq had more to do with their fear that their access to Iraq's oil would dry up than anything else. I don't see what that has to do with the Ivory Coast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No I read the post, that's why I said the one at the end. She didn't interject the phrase, just agreed with it, and her reasons for agreeing with it don't neccesarily have to do with the article that she posted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, come now...

If I post an article about Patrick Roy beating his wife and I say "What an a$$hole", would you think I was saying it because he refused to play for Canada in the last Olympics?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cmon Don. I think MaddDog has a valid point here and you just continue to ignore it. How come when the shoe's on the other foot, France won't agree to anything we do?

But when France does something and our country doesn't interfere, we get no praise?

It's hypocrisy. Deep down, you know it too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Noooo.... the point being made was that France was intervening on their own. You're changing the point.

But on your new point, in the Ivory Coast civilians are being beaten, raped an murdered. Foreign nationals are being targetted, killing not only French civilian but people from all over the world, including an American. So, you want kudos for not getting in the way?!? Like I said, there was no need for a debate... this was so obviously a need, the U.N. Security Council agreed to allow France to send more troops immediately.

Edited by Don

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
in the Ivory Coast civilians are being beaten, raped an murdered. Foreign nationals are being targetted, killing not only French civilian but people from all over the world, including an American. So, you want kudos for not getting in the way?!? Like I said, there was no need for a debate... this was so obviously a need, the U.N. Security Council agreed to allow France to send more troops immediately

Well, in Iraq Iraqis were being beatened, raped, and murdered by Saddam and his thug for decades. So why didn't France want to intervene?? Why did they raise a big stink and try to bribe other nations on the Security Council into voting AGAINST action in Iraq? Oh, that's right, they didn't want to lose their billions of dollars in illegal oil deals. That's why they are hypocrites. :P

Funny how the U.N. apparently saw NO need to help the Iraqis all those years...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This whole debate is ludicrous.

Yes, France wants to have it both ways. So does the United States. So does every other nation. Why did the United States stay out of Rwanda, why do they continue to support ruthless dictators all over the world, and why has that been a part of their foreign policy for so long? Because it's prudent. That's why the French were against the Iraq war. Do you really think if the French would even think about intervening somewhere against OUR interests? Europe doesn't have any reason to need the United States anymore. Our interests are not their interests.

Wow, the French are hypocrites. That's a huge statement. Thanks, NY Post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wow, the French are hypocrites.  That's a huge statement.  Thanks, NY Post.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes Yes ! I Love You ALL !

:whistling:

Edited by moustic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0