Yes, but remember to disregard any evidence to the contrary! That is also very important in the rules of "liberalism".

another blog filled with gung ho ignorant americans. jesus, i hope we have another september 11th soon.

And for that I hope you're the only one in the burning building if it happens.

another blog filled with gung ho ignorant americans. jesus, i hope we have another september 11th soon.

Gotta love that patriotism.

France always acts when large numbers of it's citizens are at risk.

There is a big difference between acting to stop a civil war and invading a stable country run by a dictator.

As has been mentioned the UN security council has unanimously backed the French action. Not one single abstention or negative vote. The US, Britian, China, Russia, Chile, Germany, Pakistan, Phillipines, Romania, Spain, Algeria, Angola, Benin and Brazil all voted in favour. The African Union has also endorsed the resolution, supporting French action and supporting an immediate arms embargo.

So what are people's problems here. I don't see the US government making any accusations or suggestions that France is there because of cocoa, so why do some individuals make such accusations? Hatred. That's what it's about. Any excuse to make unfounded and racist attacks against the French. All it would have taken is 10 minutes to check the facts before accusing France of such abuse. But no, racists don''t care about the facts. Very sad.


Paul.

Excerpt from The Associated Press:

"France's retaliation prompted mob violence in Ivory Coast's national commercial capital, Abidjan, as thousands of angry loyalists armed with machetes, axes and clubs took to the streets in search of French targets.

"French go home!'' loyalist mobs shouted, as thousands set fire to at least two French schools and tried to storm a French military base in Abidjan, seeking out French civilians as French and Ivory Coast forces briefly traded gunfire.

'Everybody get your Frenchman!'' young men screamed, swinging machetes.'"

The French, the same nation-state that allied with Nazi Germany in W.W.II, and relished in the rounding up and extermination of Jews, is at again; still getting a big colonial kick out of repressing Africans. After the Second war, France should have been treated as the enemy to humanity that they obviously are.

I don't see the US government making any accusations or suggestions that France is there because of cocoa, so why do some individuals make such accusations? Hatred.

Yeah, I thought it was PRETTY clear that we were being facetious...

There is a big difference between acting to stop a civil war and invading a stable country run by a dictator.

I can't believe that France or the U.N. would dare intervene and violate the sovereignty of another nation. Who is the Ivory Coast a threat to? A civil war sounds only affects them, and to intervene is to violate the sovereignty of both the government of that country and the rebels fighting to break from that country.
We might as well use this to start a war in any country with people who want a new government.

Little_whip, you have a habit of using 'jokes' in many threads to make thinly veiled attacks. Your comment of "shooting Africans become a favorite passtime of the French" was particularly not funny. I apologise if I failed to see the joke here, but it's getting quite hard to spot the difference. I most certainly did see the humour in many of your later comments and had no issues with them at all. I was not focussing my previous comments on you, but on general anti-French hatred.

Hitparade, your comments about French collaborators do not apply to the whole country. You really do seem to have an anti-French problem. Yes they tend to be a very arrogant country but in this instant the facts support their peace keeping credentials. Again I ask why you personally beleive differently that your government. What information and experience do you have that makes you so anti French on this Ivory Coast issue?

Paul.

Messy Buu,
you raise an important point as to the legal authority to intervene in a soveign state. The answer is that the UN charter itself gives it the right to intervene in internal disputes under a number of different situations. It has the legal authority to ANY dispute or situation that may lead to international tension, take action to restore peace or stop aggression (including military), or impose economic sanctions. These are rights that all signatories to the UN have granted to it, so the UN has a perfectly legal basis for intervening.
As for starting a war, the UN (through the Security Council) could technically do so if it got the required approval. That's the point of the security council. The various vetos and spread of members are designed to ensure that such authority is only used in instances where there is agreement, or else some countries may insist on the UN invading China to restore democracy to Tibet. In the instant of the Ivory Coast there was UNANIMOUS approval from ALL 15 members of the security council and from the African Union political body. So the legal authority for the action is totally sound.

Paul.