Occupation, looting, rioting, civilian deaths, chaos...why hasn't the peace mob taken to the streets and chanted for this mess to end.

Well, because it is the French mess in the Cote d'Ivoire:

Parliament speaker Mamadou Coulibaly [sic, Assemblée Nationale president Mamadou Koulibaly] said the French had killed 30 people and wounded more than 100 in the main cities of Abidjan and Yamassoukro.

"Army command denies the report that around 30 Ivorians were killed and another 100 wounded by the French army," said defence ministry spokesman Gerad Dubois, quoted by French news agency AFP.

France had responded to an earlier Ivorian air attack on the rebel town of Bouake that left nine French peacekeepers dead - a government breach of a ceasefire signed in July 2003.

President Jacques Chirac ordered the "immediate destruction of Ivorian military aircraft used in recent days in violation of the ceasefire".

Paris said it had destroyed two Sukhoi warplanes and three helicopter gunships - virtually the entire Ivory Coast airforce.

[Following the French retaliation] French citizens were attacked... Rioters were seen brandishing axes, machetes and clubs as they roamed the streets shouting "French go home!" and "Everybody get your Frenchman!"

The French are not seen as impartial peacekeepers, but a revanchist colonial power allegedly favoring the rebels over government loyalists:

The government took a defiant tone toward France. Ivory Coast will ask the U.N. Security Council for action against France, presidential spokesman Desire Tagro told The Associated Press. "We are faced with aggression by one country against another country. We are going to inform the entire world ... that France has come to attack us.''

Speaking to French radio Inter...Koulibaly accused French President Jacques Chirac of arming Ivory Coast's rebels and of sabotaging Ivory Coast's government.

"Ivory Coast has become an overseas territory in Jacques Chirac's head,'' said Koulibaly, Ivory Coast's second-highest leader.

So the civilized, sophisticated, oh-so-diplomatic French are unilaterally killing Civilians? Interfering with Ivory Coast Government and all without UN blessing?? Sacre Bleu! I'm sure we'll see lots of anti-French protests from the fair minded, peace-loving Europeans, just like we did about Iraq. /endsarcasm

But I won't hold my breath. What hypocrisy. Can’t wait for the next moral high ground you Euros try to take against Americans.

More French murder and humiliation of unarmed civilians in a 'former' colony which does not have WMD's. What's more, France is siding with and arming Muslims in IC who want to impose Sharia in their fight agains Christians. Remember all the French 'concern' for innocents in Iraq when coalition troops freed them? French troops showing concern and nuance by firing 20mm cannons on demonstrators in IC

Note that France will have 10,000 troops in Ivory Coast, compared to 500 in Afghanistan hunting OBL. Priorities, you know

I would love to see us arming the opposition to France in all of her 'former' colonies. Stripping her of her clients one by one. Without her colonial empire, I think that France's exceptionalism would collapse even quicker, as would her delusions of importance.

I would love to see us arming the opposition to France in all of her 'former' colonies

Well that's already a systematic US politic sinces 50 years ,one could argue that's one reason why the french developed animosity towards USA.
A lot of you guys heard about France 2 years ago for the first time because they needed you to do so.
But now the thingy is over , you can put your tinfoil hats back on.

Anyway anynobody has spoken about the IC death camps yet ? (irony)

QUAGMIRE!!!!

Rioters were seen brandishing axes, machetes and clubs as they roamed the streets shouting "French go home!" and "Everybody get your Frenchman!"

Are not these “resistance” fighters? Bet that’s not what the French Press is calling them.

Well that's already a systematic US politic sinces 50 years

Oh really? Another example of a typical ignorant Frenchman who "knows" what he's talking about

I suppose you can provide us examples of the US arming former French colonies in order to oppose France.. non? Because enlightened Frenchmen like you would never do anything like throw out false accusations without being able to back it up with examaples and facts, right?

Quote from The Swiss Basler Zeitung here:

"More important, the paper said, were the strategic interests, the 15,000 French who live there[Ivory Coast]and represent major economic interests. If France didn't have this area of influence, it would be much more difficult for it to feel like a great power."

With France, it's always about the money and phony prestige.. French support of mass murdering tyrants like Saddam and the govt of Sudan, oppressing former colonies, etc... what's important, is that the French make $$ no matter what they have to do to get it, and that France "feels" like a great power. That's what is really important

Hi andy, you should know that Gbagbo is a dictator and his allegations are worth badgad's bob ones.
He tries to play on french colonial past for purely political/strategical purposes.
You should remember French are here under a UN mandate (they were chosen because they know the region).
Also french forces are seen as traitors to the ennemy by the loyalists and rebels as well.

opiniated blowhard
suppose you can provide us examples of the US arming former French colonies in order to oppose France.
Word is as deadly as the sword.
US did systematically oppose colonial powers
on "moral high grounds" ,but more pragmatically
tried to reduce theier power.
US patiently waited France to loose control over vietnam before coming in.
US droped France an Britain in the Suez canal crisis.
US/Britain were eager to recognize Algerian terrorism as natural (with a UN resolution how ironic).
After that France had rather business with its former ennemies than with an "unconstant" ally.
Who is to blame on?

you should know that Gbagbo is a dictator

Yes, thanks, I think we all know that. Saddam was also a dictator. What did Gbagdo do that Saddam did not do? Kill many countrymen? Sponser a form of terrorism? Sounds the same.

You should remember French are here under a UN mandate
Ah, a UN mandate to remove a "dictator". Wonder why the UN had no mandate to remove that "other" dictator? Bribes, maybe?

"US droped France an Britain in the Suez canal crisis"

Get over it already froggies, you were in the wrong. As a former colony, we Americans can see it. As a former empire, you Frenchies cannot.

Andy
What did Gbagdo do that Saddam did not do?
He striked first.UN forces acted on legetime defense.

Ah, a UN mandate to remove a "dictator". Wonder why the UN had no mandate to remove that "other" dictator? Bribes, maybe?
A UN mandate to watch a cease fire and to endorse stability in the region.UN has never toppled regimes.

Moptop
Get over it already froggies, you were in the wrong. As a former colony, we Americans can see it. As a former empire, you Frenchies cannot.

That's a joke ,you 're basically telling that criminals can never be victims and victims never be criminals.
All black or all white ,come on you know you're lying to you.Otherwise nobody would have talked
of american imperialism.Having been abused once does'nt give you the right to be blind.
You guys are searching a way to replace Europe ,but you have to play hard the comedy to make it look different(you have to make Europe looks like a monster).
The image that pops to my mind is the one of a criminal finding holy reasons to escape from jail.

Anyway , how do you explain that :
France was blamed from US for reacting to the most ugliest crimes a terrorist could imagine,
so disgusting any good hearthed man cans not retain to puke thinking of it.
Now 40 years after France acted like US wanted ,US
says "HEY Come on ,attack them they have killed one of ours!What you don't want to fight?Are you a coward?"
Worst of all is Oussama and Co were formed by the US...
Talibans in Afghanistan were also America best allies .
I guess playing with the devil get you caught.

Otherwise on a more serious tone:
my daddy is bigger than yours.

With France, it's always about the money and phony prestige..

Prestige for what? Your stupid remarks are getting a little old, frankly. Actually, blow-hard, French troops were asked to intervene, not that it is the first time Fench troops are asked to calm civil unrest in an African country. By the way, a US citizen was killed along with 9 French soldiers in a completely unprovoked air attack. The IC "air force" has been destroyed. Should France have remained idle? The majority of Ivorians want French troops to remain. So does the US.

Interesting how all of a sudden, you're all experts on African matters when you could not give a crap (nor locate IC on a map) about it before 9/11.

So the civilized, sophisticated, oh-so-diplomatic French are unilaterally killing Civilians?

9 of them. "A very small wedding party", according to US military standards.

French troops gave warning shots. Protesters killed a Ivorian security guard and panic followed. It's doubtful French troops deliberately targeted civilians from helicopters, but the blame will be on France. Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

American troops gave warning via 17 UNSC resolutions and 2 no fly zones. Saddam's forces killed many Iraqi citizens and mass grave fillage followed. It's doubtful American troops deliberately targeted civilians, but the blame will be on America. Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

Why yes it does sound familiar Zoomeridiot. Thanks for noticing.

"US patiently waited France to loose control over Vietnam before coming in."

I always loved that argument, considering the US paid for 80% of France's war costs in Post WWII Vietnam. That is some expensive waiting.

They've got their problems in French Polynesia, too.

We ought to send a couple of destroyers out there and send them packing.

I always loved that argument, considering the US paid for 80% of France's war costs in Post WWII Vietnam. That is some expensive waiting.
3 billions .
Nothing compared to the $150 billions( $500 actual dollars) spent from 1965 to 75 and subsequent casualties.
Eisenhower was asked to let B29s bomb Dien Bien Phu surroundings 24 april 1954 and refused.
He surely had some interesting plan in his mind this day,
we can safely assume French were not part of it.
Besides how to qualify Roosevelt's decision to let britain and CHINA occupy indochina?

US patiently waited France to loose control over vietnam before coming in

Eisenhower was asked to let B29s bomb Dien Bien Phu surroundings 24 april 1954 and refused.
He surely had some interesting plan in his mind this day, we can safely assume French were not part of it.

I can't tell you how many Frenchmen I've met who believe these types of conspiracy theories about how the US tried to "steal" Vietnam from France. The French truly are such a pathetic, weak-minded people, which is probably why over 80% of the them actually believed the US was going into Iraq in order to steal the oil. Dumbasses.... and so many other brain dead Frenchmen believing that 9/11 was all a US govt conspiracy. Not exactly a nation of informed, independent thinkers

Worst of all is Oussama and Co were formed by the US...
Talibans in Afghanistan were also America best allies

More French ignorance and stupidity. OBL and company were not "formed" by the US. We aided Afghan resistance in a righteous fight against Soviet tyranny. And your point is...???

Still waiting to hear an example of the US "arming" (your words) a former French colony to help them oppose France. What!? You just made that up?? Say it ain't so

Happy 229th Birthday to the US Marine Corps.!

I can't tell you how many Frenchmen I've met who believe these types of conspiracy theories
That's not conspiracy that's lucidity.
They didn't mind France leaving the place when it suited them.

Iraq
I don't know if it was about oil(maybe it is on a larger time scale) , but i doubt it was an altruistic move.
9/11
I'd like too see your sources about 9/11 but i don't want to sign up.
I don't think they planned it , but i'm certain peoples found it a lucky opportunity (cough Wolfowitz cough).
On the other hand,concerning conspiracies i, think peoples knowing secret agencies exist and refusing to admit they can plan conspiracies are idiots :
I won't be surprised to learn you're the kind that believe one bullet
managed to kill Kennedy and hit two other passengers.
When a secret group has the motive and the means
you can assume they try to achieve theier deeds.
That's what they are for.If you analyse past affairs (those falling in public domain 40 years after operations)
you can make parrallels with today situation and make a reasonable hypothesis.

More French ignorance and stupidity. OBL and company were not "formed" by the US.
Ben Laden was an organisator of Taliban resitance to Soviet russia in Afganistan.He furnished the money and the men.It's no secret he was in direct contact with the CIA (80's).
The nairobi bombing in 1998 started an open war between FBI and CIA.So you can't say it's a biased point of view.
Check your facts.You might find it is believed Ben Laden had not totally broken contact until 9/11.
Another one interesting on topic: CIA turned a blind eye on yhe production of Opium/Cocaïn which hitted US shores,killing indirectly young innocent Americans.CIA and morality are two different entities.

still waiting to hear an example of the US "arming" (your words) a former French colony to help them oppose France

I'm not sure you understood my previous posts.
You can incite peoples to take arms ,recognize terrorist regimes without giving them any weapons and still have a devastating effect.
Can't we can say a leader arms his troops from the moment he declares the hostilities?
He does'nt have to give them weapons ,he cans just as well say :
"take any weapon you find : knife ,old rifle etc and kill the xxx oppressor"
In 1945 Roosevelt let China took foot on vietnam
and Roosevelt was willing to do businness with Ho Chin Minh : in one way he armed the guerilleros because of the environment he created.
In algeria US/britain non supportive stance determined algerians extremists that theier actions were good.Algeria case was similar to the Palestinian one,but US reaction different.

And there you have it. Common garden variety French mental illness on full display in the form of 'Avenger'.. conspiracy-laden theories believed by so many ignorant Frenchmen.. no different than the drooling idiots who claim we never landed on the moon.

Avenger regarding 9/11: I don't think they planned it , but i'm certain peoples found it a lucky opportunity (cough Wolfowitz cough).

Ah yes, more eurotrash delusions over the 9/11 Jewish Wolfowitz plot/opportunity... this type of 'thinking' is no different than the 75%+ of arabs who actually believe that jews didn't show up for work in the WTC on 9/11... Let's summarize: according to French common 'wisdom' the US tried to "steal" Vietnam from France, we "created" OBL, 9/11 was a Wolfowitz/CIA plot, OBL was was behind the grassy knoll, etc... You see, France breeds these type of freaks.. That's exactly why the 9/11-was-a-US-govt-conspiracy books were such runaway best sellers in France, it's why 80% of France believes we went into Iraq to steal the oil.

Take a good up-close look at how most of France really thinks

Very good dialectic level sir ,i'm impressed ...
Take one person find him a connection with a group,find a lie the group has spread (knowing groups live from lies) and discredit the person in question in all its individuality.
Beautifull,simple is beautifull.
First , i don't believe in jew conspiracy/neither 9/11 conspiracy, i cited wolfowitz ,i could have said pearl or rumsfeld.
Now correcting what you have said we have:
US created the circonstances of a strong guerilla in Viet-Nam ,US droped France in Dien bien Phu
(that's observations not conspiracy )
, OBL was close to the CIA,9/11 happened due to CIA incompetence.
With those facts you make the hypothesis you want.
By the way,when i said i believed conspiracies exist , i didn't mean i believed in all maked up stories,most conspiracies are silent.
Anyway,you can't sweep the facts with the theories.
If you think the facts are wrong prove it.
We'll see who is biased.
Let's take a sample:
"US turned a blind eye on cocain production in Afganistan."
Do you believe it to be false?
If yes don't just discredit the testimonies ,
to convince me you'll have to form a valid explanation and a credible counter-testimony.

Source

And how, exactly, is that dialectic so far below throwing out completely wild, unsupported non sequiturs? Perhaps you can explain how it "suited" the US to have France leave Vietnam? I know, it's silly of me to ask - you mean what you say until asked what you mean, then of course you mean something else.

We'll see who is biased.

Clicking your 'Source' link at the end of your post takes you to a site which seriously argues that Flight 77 never crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11. .. and you talk about "bias"? More French mental illness

OBL was close to the CIA,9/11 happened due to CIA incompetence. With those facts you make the hypothesis you want.

Facts? Since when is it a "fact" that OBL was close to the CIA? OBL himself denies this. More French delusional hysteria. The French are so eager to swallow these wild theories without questioning

Even if the US had supported OBL in that fight against the Soviets (it appears certain the US did not), would that have been so wrong under the circumstances, fighting murderous Soviet expansion?? What then would be your point?

I see a near complete absence of critical thinking in today's French culture. It's a country of weak-minded fools who seize upon the wildest conspiracy theories, not unlike arab culture... Sorry for the repetition, but the fact that 80% of France thinks we went into Iraq to steal the oil, that says it all. That's not 'some' French who are complete idiots.. that's damn near the whole country

Ah yes, only the French would beleive in conspiracy theories of course. If you want more US sources, Blow-hard, google the subject, you will find out that idiocy doesn't spare God-fearing, highly moral Americans like yourself.

Even 911 family members and their attorneys have cast doubts on the events of 9/11. You want more lack evidence of US critical thinking as well? Here's plenty more evidence. Now find me as many French websites LITTERED with 911 conspiracies (or dedicated to anti-Americanism for that matter) and maybe I'll consider you less of an fucking idiot.

Zoomer, you sound as if you soiled yourself again. Time to take your weekly bath now you filthy animal.

I realize it's difficult to wrap your walnut size French brain around the concept, but it's one thing to come up with examples of isolated kooks here in the US (we definitely have them), vs France, in which 80% of the population, damn near the entire country, believe wild-ass conspiracy theories about the US invading Iraq to steal their oil. Throngs of drooling Frenchmen made US govt-caused-faked-9/11 conspiracy books a #1 bestseller on amazon.fr. Seriously Frenchies, how stupid can you people be, and still breathe without instructions

It's the difference between random idiots found in every country vs institutionalized, near-universal idiocy in France (and in arab culture)

God-fearing, highly moral Americans like yourself.

How French of you to make such jackass assumptions, presuming to have knowledge of my religious beliefs and moral stature.. a moral stature which happens to be in disrepute

Perhaps you can explain how it "suited" the US to have France leave Vietnam
When Dien Bien Phu battle occured the balance was no more favorable to the french(unless bombers attacked).At this time Eisenhower had the choice between commitment and calculation,he chose calculus:
if he brought aid ,he could cause China reaction
(however a small lie would have easily made the job),on the other hand he could take the occasion to make a democratic looking government free of the french hoping the Nationalist movement would fade out.
I know, it's silly of me to ask - you mean what you say until asked what you mean, then of course you mean something else.
Maybe you have noticed i answer only the lead arguments ,sorry if it's seems heterogenic (time)

Clicking your 'Source' link at the end of your post t[...]
I'm sorry for it i had the choice between a democrat from baltimore and this one i saw a nice US flag and a similar explanation , so i thought it was an ok site lol.However what is said about afghnistan is true you can google it as said zoomerx +afghanistan +ISI +opium

However i saw you quoted Ben Laden quoting himself on fox news lol
Oussama would tell you everything he thinks to be appropriate , a valid testimonny must be made by third persons who have not interest in producing false testimony.

What then would be your point?
First,the point was to make you safely see CIAs methods are unmoral:
the fact your children could die from drugs imported from afghanistan was less important than stopping communism.
Secondly,to apply it on a bigger scheme:
the talibans are extremists ,your government supported extremists, extremist hit your country.
You say it's ok to kill russians ,but not ok to kill americans?
They didn't make the difference and CIA should have known it.
What is the lesson?
Leaders should learn the limits of irresponsability.
They were clearly broken here,
and caused severe damage.

Now if you 're not OK with what is said you can still proove your point.
At this stade i'm not persuaded.

I'll repond for zoom while i'm here.
[...] in which 80% of the population, damn near the entire country[...]
Those 80% know the official version,they want to see the antithesis.That's true peoples believing all what is said in those books is frightening,
but on the other end they are certainly more close to the truth than official theory hardcore believers(not all is false in those books).
Accusing America to have prepared attack against itself is hard to believe,but taking oil in irak /securing middleast is very believable.

When Dien Bien Phu battle occured the balance was no more favorable to the french(unless bombers attacked).

That's all well and good, but it doesn't explain your comment. Our policy had nothing to do with France, or establishing democracy; it was Moscow that we wanted out. Had France won, our objective would have been achieved, so I don't understand where you think it would have "suited" us to have France out of Vietnam.

However i saw you quoted Ben Laden quoting himself on fox news lol

OBL said he never received funding from the US, making that claim not in an interview with Fox News, but in an interview with terrorist-friendly reporter Robert Fisk..OBL said it in two separate interviews. These statements are backed up by 2 former CIA station chiefs who oversaw dispersement of funds to anti-Soviet forces in the region. Both men were retired from the CIA when they made their statements that OBL never recieved CIA funding..

And your sources that the CIA did support OBL? would that be the same site you linked previously? you know, the site which seriously argues that a plane never crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11.

but taking oil in irak /securing middleast is very believable

Believable that is, if you're a severely retarded teenager..or a Frenchman. It never occurred to 80% of the French population that if we wanted to steal middle east oil, we could have easily seized the Kuwaiti oil fields we were in control of in '91 at the end of the 1st Gulf War. After all, we did save their asses, and they did owe us. Unlike France, the US has no history of invading other countries to steal oil and other resources, so there is no valid reason to think we would go to Iraq to steal oil. Nahh, all that sort of logic makes too much sense and would require critical thinking skills, scarce in France, which is why almost the entire country of France believes such crazed conspiracy theories.

the talibans are extremists ,your government supported extremists, extremist hit your country.
You say it's ok to kill russians ,but not ok to kill americans?

Classic French idiocy... trying to compare Soviet russians brutally invading and murdering Afghans in order to expand their empire.. comparing that to terrorists who killed thousands of innocent civilians on 9/11 for no good reason. You are a serious asshole for making that comparison

Doug,
Had France won, our objective would have been achieved, so I don't understand where you think it would have "suited" us to have France out of Vietnam.
Because (as mentioned earlier) at first the objective was to oust France out of Vietnam.
Only in 1950 the idea of containment came .
We can suppose when Dien Bien Phu arrived ,it was the perfect occasion to fullfill both goals.

Opiniated,
Believable that is, if you're a severely retarded teenager..or a Frenchman
Well there are the rumors of direct pocketing via halliburton.And , you have to keep in mind we deplete petroleum rather quickly ,and that Middle East will play a major role in the establishment of the price of the barrel in the coming years.

we could have easily seized the Kuwaiti oil fields[...]
For that US would have had to topp Kuwait regime:
Kuwait parlement opposed privatisation of oil companies...

that sort of logic makes too much sense and would require critical thinking skills
Which you expose?

Soviet russians[...]comparing that to terrorists[...]
I did'nt compare ,i said mujadeens who were told to make the difference didn't make it.

Throngs of drooling Frenchmen made US govt-caused-faked-9/11 conspiracy books a #1 bestseller on amazon.fr.

Does that mean they beleive it? Some do I'm sure. It's human nature: Take a tragedy (Marylin Monroe, JFK, the moon landing, 9/11 etc...), write some sensational theory about it or make it into a movie, people will consume it. Only French and Aye-rabs will eh? What a hypocritical moron you are, really. I can provide you with hundreds of US-based conspiracy books, movies, documentaries, websites etc...

France, in which 80% of the population, damn near the entire country, believe wild-ass conspiracy theories about the US invading Iraq to steal their oil.

Not to "steal" their oil (did the poll mention that specific word?), but do you seriously beleive that securing the second oil reserves on the planet is not something the US seriously looked at out of self-interest? I would bet many Americans are fully aware of that.

Yep,
Opiniated ,here is a link
on Oussama before you ask it.
Anyway you could google those if you were curious enough.

we could have easily seized the Kuwaiti oil fields[...]
For that US would have had to topp Kuwait regime:
Kuwait parlement opposed privatisation of oil companies...

Wow, you seem like a guy who really knows what he's talking about. 80% of France believes we invaded Iraq for the oil, but when it's pointed out how completely illogical that would be given that if we wanted to steal middle east oil, we were in control of Kuwaiti oil fields in '91 and voluntarily returned them back to Kuwait. The response is, that "Kuwait opposed privatization of oil companies". And there you have it..

Step back a minute and marvel at the idiocy which passes as common wisdom in France. The French morons are willing to believe that we spent over $150 billion + more than 1,000 american lives lost, travelling across the globe to Iraq to depose the govt of Saddam, all that just to steal Iraq's oil... yet in '91, when Kuwait was already lying in a defeated and supine position as a result of Iraq's invasion, when we could have kept control of those oil fields with comparitively little or no effort, but we didn't, and all the French can say is that the Kuwait govt would not have allowed it. French inbreeding has taken its toll

Newsflash you dumbass: The Kuwaiti govt was in no position to tell anyone what to do at that time, much less the USA who was controlling the oil fields with enough firepower to turn the rest of Kuwait into glass. This is exactly the type of delusional logic-free thinking which defines the country of France, a country of fools so willing to swallow the wildest of conspiracy theories, ignoring all facts to the contrary to sustain their delusions, no matter how obvious those facts are

As for the OBL/CIA link..the BBC article you provide is admittedly more credible than the site you linked to previously, but that's not saying much since the site you linked to before argued that a plane never crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11.. the BBC article gives no details of CIA support of OBL and no corraborating evidence. None.

You see, you claimed OBL support from the CIA was a "fact". But OBL himself has denied this. OBL's denials of CIA support are corraborated by 2 CIA station chiefs in that region who were in a position to know. That is much more convincing evidence than a vague, unsubstantiated report of CIA training of OBL from a BBC reporter, a report with no specifics or corraboration. CIA support of OBL may be in dispute, but their association together is definitely not a "fact" as is commonly accepted in France and throughout arab culture. Sorry to pop your bubble

the fact your children could die from drugs imported from afghanistan was less important than stopping communism.

You Frenchies are too stupid for words, seriously. You're really like something out of a cartoon. Yes, fighting murderous Soviet communist expansion, fighting a Soviet idiology that killed over 100 million people over the past century, and now more recently, killing Al Queda and destroying their bases in Afghanistan took priority over dealing with poppy fields. Isn't that something? Can you believe it? I mean, fighting Soviet communist tyranny, then dealing with terrorist camps, Al Queda, and Taliban, taking priority over poppy fields? The CIA is sooo evil and stupid..non? Why can't they get their priorities straight? They should listen to smart people like you instead

The Kuwaiti govt was in no position to tell anyone what to do at that time, much less the USA who was controlling the oil fields with enough firepower to turn the rest of Kuwait into glass.

Kuwait was liberated under a UN mandate , it would have been hard to do anything but put back the original government which was in place before the war.
Irak was an occasion to intervene ,there are numerous other reasons that made the attack usefull:political defiance to EU,making hte middle east more friendly.

CIA support to mujadeens is an indirect support to Ben Laden . Discussing direct relations doesn't change that.However if you search you'll find several mentions of meeting with CIA agents.

CIA support to mujadeens is an indirect support to Ben Laden

Wait a minute, earlier you said OBL and company "were formed by the US" (your exact words). Which is it? Indirect support, 'support' which is disputed by credible evidence, or the US "formed" OBL's organization?

I get so confused trying to decipher French 'logic'

Only in 1950 the idea of containment came.
We can suppose when Dien Bien Phu arrived, it was the perfect occasion to fullfill both goals.

Is that what they teach you? Let me fill in the gaps. Roosevelt died in office in 1945. When Truman took his place (1945-1953), "It was made quite clear to Bidault that the record is entirely innocent of any official statement of this government questioning, even by implication, French sovereignty over Indo-China. Certain elements of American public opinion, however, condemned French governmental policies and practices in Indo-China." (source)

Furthermore, I don't know what French opinion of the time was, but this document maintains that "no significant body of opinion in France held the French should continue to mold Vietnamese politics" - which puts French opinion perfectly in line with Roosevelt's desire that Vietnam be on a track for independance. There is still no support for your claim that seeing France get it's ass kicked out of Vietnam was the method by which the US intended to see Vietnamese independance; in fact, the quote you link suggests quite the opposite.

That document, incidentally, is a summary of the Pentagon Papers - a four volume set of papers that no credible discussion of US policy in Vietnam can omit. It was a classified internal study of roughly 30 years of Vietnam policy which was never expected to become public. I don't claim to have read it all, but if it interests you that link will take you to a summary of vol. 1 ch. 4, which relates to our position regarding France in Vietnam.

That is much more convincing evidence than a vague, unsubstantiated report of CIA training of OBL from a BBC reporter

*gasp* You're not suggesting that the Bigot Broadcasting Corporation might have "sexed up" a report, are you? And here I thought that the BBC was an icon of journalistic integrity, as credible as the New York Times.

Oh... I see your point.