- Sep 6, 2000
- 25,383
- 1,013
- 126
The French did something worthy of praise this week (could it be?)
- Thread starter glenn1
- Start date
French forces are usually in the lead in embassy evactuations/protection of westerners in Sub-saharan Africa. How is that really unique?
The French have a significant military presence in Africa so they take the lead here just like the US, Brits, and others take the lead in other parts of the world. Keep in mind that they are just taking out the Westerners and not intervening. As the bloodbath in Liveria continues they will again stand on the sidelines and watch once their interests are addressed.
As will we, as will the rest of the world...because quite frankly no one gives a sh$$ if a bunch of black people in Africa kill each other.
No, it's not my personal opinion. I believe the UN should be given a real military option and the undisputable mandate to intervene around the world whenever human rights are being violated on that scale.
However, that statement acurately sumarizes the views and actions of most of the world save the bleeding hearts like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International.
They are on thier own.
New World Order!
The word you chose "lead" is interesting. Definitely more digestible vs, say, "domination" or "control".
the french stood up to america for their own ambitions. History will remember their failure, not their opinion on WMD, of which they were in total agreement with the US. You, sir, are quite confused.
Originally posted by: JellyBaby
New World Order!The word you chose "lead" is interesting. Definitely more digestible vs, say, "domination" or "control".
I would just like to observe that you have taken quotes from two different people from two different contexts and juxtapositioned them without attribution to change the meaning. This is generally considered improper outside of certain places like the New York Times Editorial Page.
My comment was intended to refer to taking the lead in evacuating foreigners from a zone of conflict. For example, if things flared up in Korea, the Philipines, etc., the US would take the lead in evacuating French civilians.
This contrasts to Iraq, which I fully supported and would refer to as "beating the crap out of".
Failure in what, exactly? To take part in a farce? To trick her citizens into believing Iraq posed a direct threat (ala Blair, Bush)?
this war was not a farce in any sense. Before this war even started, everyone, including the UN and those that opposed it, agreed that Iraq had and used WMDs. They also agreed, upon being forced by the US, that the UN should start hunting for WMD again. The only difference of opinion was that the opposers preferred the UN route while the willing supported Washington's view of an "imminent threat." Granted, the decision to go to war was decided as early as 1998 after some well-known papers were written on the subject, but the facts were agreed on by all parties. The truth, well, that's another story.
Facts DOES NOT EQUAL Truth
KenGr, sorry, I just quoted/replied to 2 people in one post to save time (I hate the nested quoting Zuni has rigged up as it creates needlessly long, headache inducing posts).
If I recall correctly, the UN had been searching for weapons for some months (years?) before Bush's invasion. And to the critics, hawks shouted "we have given them enough time to search, it's time to do something about it"
And, funnily enough, after the war has raged and Baghdad has crumbled, and we ourselves cannot find the WMD whose existence we so defiantly proclaimed, what do the hawks have to say? "give us more time, they will turn up"
How ironic. A "farce" in its purest form, indeed.
it would be a farce if you said that everyone, including the United Nations, was in on this. As I've pointed out earlier, they agreed to the cold hard facts. Again, the truth is another matter. It is subject to interpretations. Get that through your head.
The facts being what? That Iraq possibly had a WMD program (let's not forget the head inspector asked for more time to look)? Let's also not forget that the UN, and the majority of her constituency, was NOT in support of this war.
Lets also not forget that the UN(mainly france) refused to put a deadline on compliance.
Lets also not forget what the UN had no idea what severe consequences were.
But I will give credit where credit is due and thank the French for rescuing those people.
Again, I'm not discussing what the truth is (outcomes/reasonings). I'm discussing facts. The Bush administration and the UN agreed that the UN should return and look for WMDs.
The UN wanted more time to complete the task because...
But the Bush administration wanted to get rid of saddam because...
The reasonings are debatable. The facts are not. Iraq kicked out the UN in 1998. The UN found holes in the papers iraq submitted in november/december. The facts go on and on.
Originally posted by: JellyBaby
New World Order!The word you chose "lead" is interesting. Definitely more digestible vs, say, "domination" or "control".
Hey wasn't that Bush Sr. coined line ? Thousand points of lights, building a New World Order.....blah...blah.....blah...
Yep, a New World Order made possible through the kind and gentle hand of overwhelming military might.
of course, if you wanted to flee a war scene as fast as possible, who else would you call....
tell them to drop their ban on genetically modified foods that contriubtes to millions of deaths in Africa, all done out of protectionism for their own domestic farmers. This is far worse than the bait and switch they pul on third world countries in the rice game that also makes sure many more starve everyday than necessary., anything to make a buck Of course, given their past support of Saddam even in the face of sanctions they signed themselves, who is suprised anymore. Dumbass Saddam took the modern conventional weapons and all the luxury items we found in his palaces that were banned and actually thought his bribes could stop the will of the international community.
France is always in Africa because they have so many former colonies there they still meddle in, without UN approval most of the time. Couldn't they have stuck with arming the ME with WMD? No wonder our ancestors fled......
tell them to drop their ban on genetically modified foods that contriubtes to millions of deaths in Africa, all done out of protectionism for their own domestic farmers. This is far worse than the bait and switch they pul on third world countries in the rice game that also makes sure many more starve everyday than necessary., anything to make a buck Of course, given their past support of Saddam even in the face of sanctions they signed themselves, who is suprised anymore. Dumbass Saddam took the modern conventional weapons and all the luxury items we found in his palaces that were banned and actually thought his bribes could stop the will of the international community.
France is always in Africa because they have so many former colonies there they still meddle in, without UN approval most of the time. Couldn't they have stuck with arming the ME with WMD? No wonder our ancestors fled......
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter