geni
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2003
- Messages
- 28,209
France responds to attacks on its troops
Yes he did:
"Such action, the French statement said, was authorised by the United Nations mandate covering France's peacekeepers in Ivory Coast. "
The Ivory Coast (Cote D'Ivoire) is a former French colony over which France still has some legal control under its UN approved mandate as peacekeepers in the country.
This now becomes an internal matter and does not involve the United Nations anymore than a criminal attack on the middle of Chicago would require the U.S. to get U.N. approval to take measures to retaliate or prevent it from happening again (e.g. destroying the planes involved). Destroying planes used in ilegal terrorist attacks is not nearly the same as invading a country which did not attack us (US vrs Iraq) so the obvious attempt at a comparison is lost. Pathetic.
"Such action, the French statement said, was authorised by the United Nations mandate covering France's peacekeepers in Ivory Coast. "
The Ivory Coast (Cote D'Ivoire) is a former French colony over which France still has some legal control under its UN approved mandate as peacekeepers in the country.
This now becomes an internal matter and does not involve the United Nations anymore than a criminal attack on the middle of Chicago would require the U.S. to get U.N. approval to take measures to retaliate or prevent it from happening again (e.g. destroying the planes involved). Destroying planes used in ilegal terrorist attacks is not nearly the same as invading a country which did not attack us (US vrs Iraq) so the obvious attempt at a comparison is lost. Pathetic.
Thanks. Yes, it is a former French colony over which France still has considerable influence then including as a result of its UN mandate. Any country which has thousands of troops on another's soil exerts considerable influence over it. e.g. see
U.S. and Iraq.
CIA FACT BOOK (2004):
It is still a feeble attempt by pro-Bush, pro Iraq war supporters to
try and say there is a double standard. There is no double standard. France was within its rights in the acton it took. The U.S. attacked Iraq illegally (we were not attacked by Iraq) based on phoney information conjured up by questionnable intelligence sources.: no WMDS and no support for terrorism against the U.S. The only terrorism in Iraq against the U.S. has come after we invaded the country and declared a victory there and decided not to leave when our job was done. That this was part of a grand adventure by Bush to exert his friends and family's influence on the oil reserves there as well as to secure a possible beachhead for attacking Iran is indisputable. Fine but please call it like it is and try to stick to the facts.
U.S. and Iraq.
CIA FACT BOOK (2004):
It is still a feeble attempt by pro-Bush, pro Iraq war supporters to
try and say there is a double standard. There is no double standard. France was within its rights in the acton it took. The U.S. attacked Iraq illegally (we were not attacked by Iraq) based on phoney information conjured up by questionnable intelligence sources.: no WMDS and no support for terrorism against the U.S. The only terrorism in Iraq against the U.S. has come after we invaded the country and declared a victory there and decided not to leave when our job was done. That this was part of a grand adventure by Bush to exert his friends and family's influence on the oil reserves there as well as to secure a possible beachhead for attacking Iran is indisputable. Fine but please call it like it is and try to stick to the facts.
geni
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2003
- Messages
- 28,209
materia3 said:
Who exactly are you talking about?
This has nothing to do with Iraq. It is nothing like Iraq. The french are playing piggy in the middle between two armed groups with a clear UN mandate. No one in this thread had mentioned Iraq untill you did.
The U.S. did not get Kofi Anan to approve our attack on Iraq. The U.S. did not get the Security Council to approve our attack on Iraq. Richard G. is obviously asking if it is okay for France to have done what it did (destroy two airplanes) without Anan or the Security Council's okay.
Answer YES. Because Richard G (& Geni) like you said (Geni) it is in no way comparable to what the U.S. did by illegally attacking Iraq.
I have seen this kind of political BS before as played by Richard G so unless he is answered immediately someone might think France attacked the Ivory Coast without UN approval.
"Mob violence erupted in Ivory Coast's national commercial capital, Abidjan, upon France's retaliation, sending thousands of angry loyalists armed with machetes, axes and clubs out into the streets in fiery rampages in search of French targets."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4600663,00.html
Interesting to note the use of language here.
No insurgents and the rebels are even described as loyalists?
Is there a "neutral" tone/sentiment to this report, or am I just imagining it?
Just realized that the headline actually describes the attacks of the erstwhile colonial forces as "revenge".
Wow, I bet the resistance in Iraq would like that kind of language applied to the actions of their occupiers.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4600663,00.html
Interesting to note the use of language here.
No insurgents and the rebels are even described as loyalists?
Is there a "neutral" tone/sentiment to this report, or am I just imagining it?
Just realized that the headline actually describes the attacks of the erstwhile colonial forces as "revenge".
Wow, I bet the resistance in Iraq would like that kind of language applied to the actions of their occupiers.
Kopji
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2003
- Messages
- 8,004
Ivory Coast is at civil war.
Yeah, Americans should take notes because this may be us in a couple more years in Iraq.
The French are stuck in the middle because of business interests and lots of French people there.
The IC government passed a STUPID law disenfranchising half their people. (They were no longer citizens if both parents were not native born). War broke out when they told their citizens to go home to a place they'd never been...
A ceasefire was supposed to include adding a law that made it easier be be citizens again. This did not happen, instead the government smuggled more arms in and began breaking the ceasefire (I call this "reloading").
Since the French are fighting back, (being good peacekeepers) they are portrayed as evil and become target A1.
Yeah, Americans should take notes because this may be us in a couple more years in Iraq.
The French are stuck in the middle because of business interests and lots of French people there.
The IC government passed a STUPID law disenfranchising half their people. (They were no longer citizens if both parents were not native born). War broke out when they told their citizens to go home to a place they'd never been...
A ceasefire was supposed to include adding a law that made it easier be be citizens again. This did not happen, instead the government smuggled more arms in and began breaking the ceasefire (I call this "reloading").
Since the French are fighting back, (being good peacekeepers) they are portrayed as evil and become target A1.
crimresearch
Alumbrado
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2004
- Messages
- 10,600
'None so blind as they who will not see...'
For those who actually don't know, the French are busy using military force and flimsy excuses to reclaim their former colonies where newly accessible oil reserves threaten to dwarf OPEC's potential...
except in places where other armies are already guarding the oil rich turf, like Somalia, where the UN has no problem with Chinese divisions securing the new oil refinery, but not lifting a finger to stop the genocide.
Apparently for some folks, imperialist aggression for oil is a *good* thing, as long as the right people are engaging in it.
(Note: This would be the same Cote d' Ivoire in which the French 'peacekeepers' have condoned open air slave markets for decades..the ones that posters on this board are conveniently blind to when I bring them up...but no hypocrites here, oh no...
crimresearch said:
'None so blind as they who will not see...'
For those who actually don't know, the French are busy using military force and flimsy excuses to reclaim their former colonies where newly accessible oil reserves threaten to dwarf OPEC's potential...
except in places where other armies are already guarding the oil rich turf, like Somalia, where the UN has no problem with Chinese divisions securing the new oil refinery, but not lifting a finger to stop the genocide.
Apparently for some folks, imperialist aggression for oil is a *good* thing, as long as the right people are engaging in it.
(Note: This would be the same Cote d' Ivoire in which the French 'peacekeepers' have condoned open air slave markets for decades..the ones that posters on this board are conveniently blind to when I bring them up...but no hypocrites here, oh no...
France has a full UN mandate for its actions. Keep rereading this sentence until this fact and the implications of it sink in. Take your time.
Nikk said:
So what? read that question until the full significance sets in.
More to the point, France do not have any mandate to take offensive action of any kind - since they are supposed to be peacekeepers. But that is exactly what they have said they will do.
Drooper said:
The fact that the UN and the Security Council are dominated by non Western states who do not have any sympathy with neo colonialism really should give you and crimresearch a clue.
The action of the French is defensive and approved by the UN. So what is your point?
malbui
Beauf
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2004
- Messages
- 4,692
Drooper said:
Maybe we're coming back to the old saw about the best form of defence being attack. From where I'm sitting I don't see much wrong with actions designed to limit warring parties' offensive capabilities, such as the destruction of the aircraft over the weekend. But then I'm French.
Nikk said:
Maybe i'm wrong, but i remeber that UN coucil made a resolution, that US led coalition forces in Iraq to take care of safety(which they did not manage well), to assist building infrastructure and help froming a new government.
As far as i know this mandate ended, when the Iraq formally got back an independent government. As this governement is recognized as legitimate by UN and European nations and probably by most others as well, the presence of coalition/US troops is in accordance with international laws, as long as the Iraqi government allows them to stay.
The conditions governing there presence(e.g. numbers, where and when to do what,..) are entirely a matter between the Iraqi government and the US governement/forces. As long as the US keep the agreement they have with Iraqi government, there presence is legal(and as long as this is no puppet government, controlled by tyhe US and as long as US forces do not break any fundemantal laws).
The official news said, that attack on Falludscha was also forestalled, because US forces had to wait for the order of the Iraqi government to begin the attack, so apparently they have some agreement with government and try at least to give the impression they keep it and the Iraqi government has something to say.
And a legitimate government is allowed to ask for help from other countries to fight rebels, who want to dispose it.
So if just taking the official facts, the current presence of US troops is legal, just that they got there by invading could be illegal, but does not hamper legality of current presence, as the new Iraqi government is free to allow their presence.
Of course it is certainly possible (and i expect others to further expand this point), that the "true" version of current situation is very different from the official one(e.g. US forces give a damn, what Iraqi governement wants and Iraqi government is left with the choice to say yes to anything US troops do or be disposed by them), making the situation illegal again, but the same question about official version being true can and should be asked then about France actions in Ivory Coast.
And about similarity, i think, the fact that both in Iraq and in Ivory Coast a part of the population is unhappy about foreign troops presence is the main similarity, with the huge difference, that in Iraq there is a far more active resistence and also some people of neighbouring countries join the fighting.
Carn
Nikk said:
My point is the arbitrary nature of what you like to deem as "legal" or "illegal" action. The fact that the security council is simply another outlet for countries to employ foreign policy should give you a clue.
This is where you and I diffe. I do not believe that the sanction or lack thereof of the UNSC makes anything "right" or "wrong", "legal" or "illegal". Actions stand on their merits and judgement of them can be made only in time, but even then not conclusively.
crimresearch
Alumbrado
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2004
- Messages
- 10,600
Nikk said:
That sheeple will swallow any load of garbage that leaders dump into their gaping mouths, without even attempting to be skeptical.
This is like watching the Gulf of Tonkin incident or 'leibensraum' , or other transparently fabricated excuses for war playing out again.
Just keep staring at the TV and saying to yourself 'No oil in Africa...UN appproved mandate....my country right or wrong...war is gooooood...'
And don't bother your pretty little head about any of those nasty old dark skinned people getting killed while you enjoy your comfort zone, brought to you by your rulers.
After all, when this turns out to be exactly as I say it is, you will only have to deny it, and demand that I provide references that you ever said this was a good 'UN approved, defensive' war, right?