ABIDJAN, Ivory Coast - French troops clashed with soldiers and angry mobs Saturday after Ivory Coast warplanes killed at least nine French peacekeepers and an American civilian in an airstrike — mayhem that threatened to draw foreign troops deeper into the West African country’s escalating civil war.
France hit back, destroying what it said was the entire Ivory Coast air force — two Russian-made Sukhoi jets used in the bombing and five helicopter gunships. France scrambled three Mirage fighter jets to West Africa and ordered about 300 troops to ready for deployment in Ivory Coast.
Any word yet on the inevitable Ivory Coast counter-counter-attack, which should then be followed with Chirac sacraficing 2/3 of his country to the Ivory Coast?
The Ottoman Empire is coming. The Ottoman Empire is coming. Hide the couches.
Originally posted by GrimisWow! First Ivory Coast; next Djibouti!
Then again, Grenada and Panama weren't exactly military superpowers. Lay off the French, it's really too Bill O'Reilly (replete with those stupid boycott France bumper stickers). Attacking them for their military action in Africa does not a Patriot make, just an ugly American. America should tend to our own problems first: unemployment, the economy, education.....
Originally posted by CRZThe least you could do is use the right name: it's Cote d'Ivoire.
Why only them? Should we refer to all countries by their "official names"? Danmark? Bundesrepublik Deutschland? Rossiya? Nippon? Helvitca?
Of the names listed, only one is in the "official" short English country name list (aka ISO 3166-1 (iso.org)) . Must be the Model UN'er in me - they've been "Cote d'Ivoire" since 1986. But please, let's continue to discuss such picayune details because it sure beats talking about people DYING.
Trying to move away from more pointless French bashing:
I would like to hear from those in favor of the Iraq war. What should France have done in response to the killing of peacekeepers? You make fun of this attack, yet what else could they have done? I really want to know, because I think alternatives should be found to violence whenever possible, so if there's one here, I'd like to hear it.
Strange how its acceptable for France to send planes into a basically third world country over some civilian deaths, but when the US wanted help hitting Lybia for terror attacks against US citizens, the US couldnt even fly over thier country to get to thier targets.
Originally posted by CRZThe least you could do is use the right name: it's Cote d'Ivoire.
Why only them? Should we refer to all countries by their "official names"? Danmark? Bundesrepublik Deutschland? Rossiya? Nippon? Helvitca?
How exactly does one translate a proper noun, anyway? How do we get "Germany" from "Duetscheland". I really don't understand. If anyone knows or just thinks I'm an idiot, please tell me.
Anyway, yeah France might be hypocrites, but didn't most people stop caring what they thought a few months ago? Maybe it's just me.
Did France go to the UN and ask for the Security Council to approve of this action first? What did Germany say about it? Or Russia for that matter? What about the will of the international community? Doesnt thier opinion count?
Strange how its acceptable for France to send planes into a basically third world country over some civilian deaths, but when the US wanted help hitting Lybia for terror attacks against US citizens, the US couldnt even fly over thier country to get to thier targets.
(edited by StaggerLee on 8.11.04 1814)
Stop arguing this in relation to the US.
I want to hear what you think France's response should have been. I don't neccessarily think France's response was correct, but I want to hear from people more inclined to use military force.
STop arguing in relation to the US? Why? WHy are French lives different than American lives? Why is it that one nations dead have less worth than others, and apparently in your eyes, dont deserve retribution?
You need to seperate the two, as they are COMPLETELY FUCKING DIFFERENT SITUATIONS!
What do I think France's response should have been?
Build a case, present it to the UN, have a vote on it, pass a resolution or two, ask for international support. Use economic sanctions.
I mean, apparently, on the world stage, that is how you go about taking military action. Not by doing what is in your nation's best interests, not by sticking up for yourself, not by doing what is favorable in your own nation.
Were you being facetious in the first part, or what? Do you seriously think this situation and the Iraq war are at all comparable?
Again, France has presented its case to the UN, even though they shouldn't bother with it, as French troops are in the Ivory Coast on peacekeeping missions, and French people were attacked. You don't need anybody elses permission when you have been attacked.
I am about to ban you for the following reason: You appear to only be interested in shouting down other people, even when your arguments are obviously not backed by the facts.
For illustration, your last post:
Originally posted by StaggerLeeSo, my question was, why the hell is France given a free pass to attack a third world nation, who really posed no threat to anybody?
Actually, they posed a threat to the French peacekeeping troops on the ground. This is factually backed up by the death of 9 troops. Your argument is specious.
Originally posted by StaggerLeeWhat could the Ivory Coast POSSIBLY have militarily, to intimidate any French troops?
The air force was considered a threat, because they were using it to attack French Peacekeeping troops. I assume killing the troops is equivalent to intimidating at the least.
Originally posted by StaggerLeeLets see, France introduced a proposal to the UN, didnt get a vote, didnt get any Security Council imput and attacked the Ivory Coast Air Force.
The proposal was unrelated to the attacks. The response to being attacked was to destroy the immediate threat - the air force. Note that the French did not destabilize the area by removing any of the sitting government (rebel or state).
Originally posted by StaggerLee (again)So, my question was, why the hell is France given a free pass to attack a third world nation, who really posed no threat to anybody?
I don't suppose you think that the Peacekeeping troops are supposed to just sit there and not actively keep the peace, do you?
Bring some facts to the discussion or get out of it.
Willful ignorance of science is not commendable. Refusing to learn the difference between a credible source and a shill is criminally stupid.
The web is buzzing with the story of a huge international illicit steroid bust - I thought this Canadian Press account was interesting http://canadianpress.google.