Here's Jack's model for responsible temperate conduct in the global community:

From a permanent basis in Abidjan, the French military presence in Ivory Coast has grown nearly tenfold in recent years. Extra troops have been sent to keep the peace between government forces under President Laurent Gbagbo and the rebel Forces Nouvelles, which control the northern part of the country. Under an agreement signed by both sides at Marcoussis near Paris last year, Mr Gbagbo undertook to form a government of national reconciliation and to amend constitutional provisions on eligibility for public office; this would notably allow Alassane Ouattara, a former prime minister of Burkina Faso descent, to run against him for the presidency next year. Since then, however, because of France's poor relations with the Ivorian government, mediation has been entrusted to Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary-General [aka, Mr. Peacepipe], and various African leaders, who met in Accra in July. Neither of these diplomatic interventions has borne much fruit.

After Sunday's retaliation for the Bouaké raid, the outlook is even grimmer. Mr Chirac has further antagonised government supporters and, by acting unilaterally, has undermined the authority of the UN peacekeeping mission, to which French troops are supposed to be subordinate. Having lost its value as a mediator, France has struck out on its own militarily and, as a consequence, is now compelled to focus on protecting its own citizens. That is obviously a prime responsibility of Mr Chirac. But it raises the question as to how he has got himself into such a mess. Having become part of the problem, an intervention designed to bring peace has become an obstacle to it.

Good post Damian. This pretty much puts to bed the lies thrown out by zoomer and others that the French got involved in the IC only because the UN asked them to.

France in fact already had 1,000's of French troops there, having dispatched them earlier without UN approval in order to keep the French jackboot over internal IC affairs.. securing corrupt French business interests.. and now, the French are unilaterally disregarding UN rules on ceasefire agreements

Did you read that Chirac snubbed Iraqi PM Allawi? Chirac, of course, claims he was "too busy", although he managed to find time to visit his good friend Yasser A. in the hospital. Would you want to face Allawi if you had bilked the Iraqi people out of billions of dollars and were the chief sponsor and apologist for a mass murderer like Saddam?

Quote from Chirac: "I'm sure that as a leader he[Saddam] loves his people"

NO MORE BLOOD FOR CHOCOLATE

Would you want to face Allawi if you had bilked the Iraqi people out of billions of dollars and were the chief sponsor and apologist for a mass murderer like Saddam?

No, but the French can do this without blinking. If asked, I'm sure Chirac would assert that it's just a disagreement.

Isn't the French Ivory Coast commander General Henri Poncet one of the architects of the Rwanda disaster?.. in which French troops aided, armed and protected the Hutu mass murderers during their slaughter of the Tutsis

I could be mistaken here regarding Poncet, but if France chose to put someone in charge of French forces in the Ivory coast who aided and abetted genocide in Rwanda, that would be incredible .. But from what I've seen, the French are capable of anything

I could be mistaken here regarding Poncet, but if France chose to put someone in charge of French forces in the Ivory coast who aided and abetted genocide in Rwanda.

It's nice to know from the ever so objective "opinionated douchebag", that the US did everything it could in Rwanda. If only there was oil there...

And speaking of the IC, did you bother to find out what is the US position on the subject?

And speaking of the IC, did you bother to find out what is the US position on the subject?

Bush's position on the subject : "Where hell can be such a wealthy country ? they can waste the money to cobble their sea shore with ivory ??!!! Even in USA we can't afford that !"

More likely, like anywhere else, including pavefrance, each one believe what (s)he wish to believe and tell what they want to tell about...

acting unilaterally, has undermined the authority of the UN peacekeeping mission

Let's read it as the traditional humoristic (and by times funny) Damian's pen style. But this time, One US citizen and 9 French soldiers, under UN mandate where killed, 23 others wounded in an air strike from the Ivorian government's airplane.

And what was the "brutal retaliation" ? : breaking the toys which where used in this aircraft... Is it that though ?

Just imagine someone in the street starting to shoot at policemen round the corner. then two policemen come, grab his gun, break it and go telling "Ok for that time but don't do it again please". It is almost what happened

The UN mandte allow the peace keeping forces to open fire when attacked. Destroying the airplanes used for this attack matches the "self defense requirement".

If it was matter of "efficience requirements", these planes should have been destroyed BEFORE.

I heard Laurent Gbagbo crying because his cute little sukhois where broken and he could not play with them anymore... Aaw! I was almost in tears, how this poor boy could guess that the Frenchs would give a shit about just one American and nine killed soldiers and break his cutest toys only for that ?...

May be Gbagbo's nanny should explain him that he was not deprived of his flying toys by Chirac but rather by who DECIDED to do this attack, who ever he is.

"Le merdier", it is indeed the appropriate word for this situation. As former colonial power, France has off course heavy responsability on it.

But taking the destruction of these Sukhoi and helicopters as the startiong point is for the best a bias. The only effect of it will be sparing the lives of the next people who would have been killed using with these f.. planes.

Thank you for illustrating so masterfully why the French are regarded as condescending and arrogant. However, France would be well served by a reminder that it is not France's place to "take away" or "break toys" of sovereign nations. Especially those nations who invited France's meddling in the first place.

UN Peacekeepers usually aren't even allowed to return fire when attacked without calling in for permission first (which is why the tend to run like frightened schoolgirls). Retalliation is right out. France did not destroy these planes and helicopters under any UN mandate - they took it upon themselves to do this. The mandate is "To observe and monitor" the ceasefire, and to "investigate violations". Destroying every aircraft owned by the country who invited you there isn't covered by the mandate.

And it is quite correct that France moved troops into IC well in advance of any SC resolution. As always, it was under the pretense of "protecting French citizens and interests". Ironic that this "protection" has precipitated harm where none was before.

It's nice to see one of the enemies of freedom getting a taste of its own medicine. They were the ones who talked about tying the U.S.'s hands on the WOT, via the UN. The French are so determined to kill Americans here and abroad, with the help of their terrorist allies. Why is the State Department and the Administration still willing to deal with those people?

And speaking of the IC, did you bother to find out what is the US position on the subject?

As has been the case over the past century, the US position is to help bail out the ungrateful French fools who created the mess

Completely beside the mark, as usual. Do you have a clue what kind of slime Bgagbo is? Of course not. At least the US State Department seems to.

I hold the belief that a people have a right to self-determination. The people of Ivory Coast believe that their nation is under threat and want to fight to keep their country, but the French do not want them to do so. When will the State Department and the Bush Administration come to this understanding and stop being so polite to these Anti-American scum?!

France: Supporter of those who want to tear Ivory Coast apart. Enemy of freedom. Originator of the Gaullist fantasy of conquest of the British Isles and terrorism against the U.S..

Come on ,put off the bong. Ivory coast was a colonial creation( 4 big groups of ethnies in one
country).Gbabgo is a dictator he wants the entire IC to be ruled by on ethnie( his one) while ousting everyone else out.
UN only try to appease the region by taking account of the different movements.
Besides ,US approved the UN intervention.

It’s surrealist.. The Americans here complains that France retaliated to the killing of 9 of its soldiers (and 1 american civilian) by destroying 5 aircrafts while , at the very same time, their military are killing hundreds of Iraquis each day ...

Remember the US retaliation for the killing of 4 Americans contractors in april in Fallujah : a bombardment of the city by US warplanes and helicopter gunships followed by urbans battles that left 600 Iraquis dead.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/12/iraq/main611309.shtml
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4667031/

The difference Fred, and pay close attention because it's a hell of big difference, is that the US did not go into Iraq under a UN peacekeeping mission as did France in the Ivory coast.

You see, France, scum that they are, are trying to stick the UN with the bill for their mess in IC. So in order to stick the UN with the bill, France agreed to follow the UN rules, which, as Doug points out above, is a UN mandate only to "To observe and monitor"

Had France acted unilaterally to further control and exploit their former colony, as they have done so many times before, that would be an entirely different matter. Any other questions?

The UN mandate authorized the use of force.

"The U.N. Security Council, meeting in an emergency session Saturday, condemned the initial attack on French forces as a violation of a May cease-fire agreement, and demanded the "immediate cessation" of military operations in accordance with that agreement.

France and the U.N. forces were authorized to use "all necessary means" to carry out that directive, a U.N. statement read.

"The council fully supports France, and fully supports [United Nations operations in the Ivory Coast] in actions taken to protect the cease-fire," John Danforth, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, said after the meeting. "

Another B*** spread by American medias, CNN this time ??

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/africa/11/06/ivorycoast.mobs/

Although it's total BS that the French are sticking the UN with the bill to pay for their mess in the IC, especially since France unilaterally sent troops earlier to IC WITHOUT UN authorization... but it seems you have a point regarding the "all necessary means" authorization. This is not a typical UN peace keeping mission authorization, and it appears on the surface the French were acting within the bounds of UNSCR 1528, even if they overreacted .. Just as the US and its coalition partners were fully within our rights invading Iraq to enforce UNSCR 1441, and to enforce the terms of Iraq's '91 surrender which had been repeatedly violated.

I note that French simpletons like zoomer and Avenger are demonizing Gbagbo without recognizing the savage atrocities being committed by the Islamic rebels..Zoomer and Avenger last spotted singing, "If I only had a brain" -- Wizard of Oz

Did you hear that France is considering naming streets after Arafat, in recognition of the billions he stole, and in honor of all the jews he massacred. Frenchies, you could have Arafat's street right next to Rue Saddam. How does that sound?

demonizing Gbagbo ?

"Several dozen white women have been raped in the Ivory Coast over the past week, as pro-government gangs plundered the homes and businesses of Europeans.

The men from the Young Patriots movement loyal to the Ivory Coast's president Laurent Gbagbo had attacked the women in retaliation for what they felt to be unjust French interference in their country's internal affairs"

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/africa/story.jsp?story=582475

Lol personal attacks already?
Why do i have the strange feeling when i hear you to have said things i didn't?
That becomes recurrent.
Who said we didn't recongnize " savage atrocities being committed by the Islamic rebels"?

USNSCR1441 was voted that's nice ,if i remember well US was not given the right to apply it(at least under international law).

I don't see the link between arafat and IC...

M. Pierre,

Welcome back in the threads.

M. Fred,

Before you read on we suggest you drop your trousers reach between your legs and unbunch your panties. Bad for the circulation.

Let's see UNSCR 1528, adopted on February 27, the year of Our Lord 2004. This is the carte blanche that you comfortably feel gives the French a free hand to do as they like.

But the French were shooting things up in Côte d’Ivoire more than a year before this Resolution had ink put to paper:
France Abandons Hands-Off Policy On Africa Conflicts: Some Fear Ivory Coast Quagmire WP 01.04.03

About 2,500 French troops have reached the WesFt African country—up from a force of 700 three months ago [scil., October 2003] —as part of Operation Unicorn... In December [scil., 2003], French troops fired tank-mounted cannons at rebels to stop an advance. ... As France has sent more soldiers, its stated mission has repeatedly shifted. First it was evacuation of French civilians, then logistical support to the government, then, most recently, enforcement of an Oct. 17 cease-fire. There is still ambiguity as to whether French troops are supporting the embattled president, Laurent Gbagbo. French officials call him the legitimately elected leader but say they are remaining neutral.

Moreover, the French are entering Ivory Coast without a clearly defined strategy for getting out. There is a true risk of a quagmire, said Jean-Francois Bayart, an Africa specialist and former director of the Center for International Study and Research in Paris.

Philippe Moreau Defarges of the French International Relations Institute said: There’s a lot of anxiety because they don’t know when it will be over. It can last for years.

A French official here, speaking on condition of anonymity, agreed. I’m worried, very worried, he said. Gbagbo wants us to fight the war in his place. And the rebels are more and more furious with us. He added, We are in another Vietnam.

French newspapers have begun writing about the African trap. But in general, the abandonment of the hands-off Africa policy announced in 1997 is occurring with little public criticism or debate.

Out of Africa? Not the French NYT 01.12.03

It is a dangerous moment. There are 2,500 French troops in the Ivory Coast, trying to hold back rebels while the French government encourages peace talks. A mix of Foreign Legionnaires, special forces and regular soldiers, it is France’s largest deployment in Africa in two decades, and it is testing the longstanding French commitment to the continent.

The expedition, which began as a peacekeeping mission last fall when fighting broke out, has neither rules nor road map. The French relinquished power over their colonies 40 years ago, but by no means cut ties to them. Well into the 1980’s, France continued to manage their destinies, propping up or toppling governments, and investing in or exploiting their economies.

But as often happens with peacekeeping, France got stuck, and its mission morphed into something much more ambitious and dangerous.

[All emphases added.]

Now the hastily cobbled up UNSCR 1528 does authorize "for a period of 12 months from 4 April 2004 the French forces to use all necessary means in order to support UNOCI", but, M. Fred, honestly, have you read the whole Resolution? My strong guess is not. Why you haven't bothered reading the whole of this thread, where this same point is made by others above.

Oh, plesae note our sources, the Washington Post and the NYT. Though CNN would give you the same story.

M. Avenger,

Pave is honored to have someone with standing to cite the international case law that circumscribed the prosecution of UNSCR 1441. Oh, but no, that wouldn't be you. You're just mouthing something you've heard mouthed by someone else, or as you seem to suggest, you don't seem to remember well at all. Perhaps you'd like to read the Resolution in its entirety first and come back and give us your informed opinion.

Regards all,
DGB

M.Damian,
I can only add I'm honored you recognize men of value.
I am however sorry to inform you i already have taken notice of this resolution.
But once more, it was a case where reflexion could have postively replaced hastening.
Let's turn this in a metaphoric way:
let say this resolution has been voted the same way a court found someone guilty.
Now the resolution passed, we must discuss how to enforce it ,the same way the court decide where the prisonner will be enprisoned and who will drive him to his destination.
In the same comparison, US is a guy in the assembly standing up at the end of the trial,
taking the suspect by the collar and claiming "it's ok ,i'll take him to my basement and take care of him".
Well if this happened into a court ,you could expect policemen to react promptly.
Something similar happened in UN ,the difference being no nation wanted to risk her live arresting such a powerfull outlaw.

Best regards also.

M. Avenger,

Yours is an interesting take on the UN. Alas, your metaphor fails on several points.

If UNSCR 1441 is analogous to a ruling in your metaphoric court, than the United States having authored, sponsored, and voted it into effect is not your metaphoric "guy in the assembly". It is a member of the bench.

It is the bench that orders the "prompt reaction" of your metaphoric policeman, that is, determines the means and license for the enforcement of its ruling.

Of course a court as you metaphorically construe it, that has neither the will or the means to "arrest such a powerful outlaw", is a hollow insitution. Prior to America's enforcement of UNSCR 1441, with 16 resolutions flouted by Saddam, the UN was indeed a hollowed out meaningless insitution.

My take, as you may have gathered, is different. In my court the powerful outlaw was Saddam's Iraq. The bench promised "grave consequences" should this outlaw fail to comply with the court's rulings. The outlaw did not comply. The United Sates delivered the grave consequences promised by order of the court, giving force, therefore meaning, to the court's ruling.

Any court that cannot give force to its rulings is not a court of law. It is something on the order of a debating club. A court of law does not just rule on the law, it ensures compliance with the law.

Regards,
DGB

Let's turn this in a metaphoric way

Yes, let's. Let's say there is a panel of judges, but several of the judges have in fact accepted bribes from the guilty party, and attempt to use their corrupt influence to exempt the guilty party from punishment.

Everyone agrees that the defendent was guilty.. no one questions that Saddam had repeatedly violated the terms of 1441 (as well as violations of other resolutions), the only issue was how many more 'second chances' he would be given.. so if the defendant had been found guilty without question or doubt, and corrupt judges try to prevent sentencing from being carried out, are not the judges who enforce the guilty verdict entirely justified in their actions?

And is it not shameful and dishonorable behavior on the part of the other judges to try to undermine the righteous execution of the sentence being enforced on the guilty party?

OK, so the guy in the assembly is one of the judges ,that does'nt give him the right to decide of the sentence alone.
And far as i know they take a concerted decision,or the trial is postponed.
In case you didn't interpreted it that way , the outlaw i told was the US willing to do justice on his own.

Opiniated,
i thought only dumb Frenchmen could believe in wild conspiracies? :)
Blix's point of view.

M. Avenger,

Alone? The only judge of your metaphor who declared itself alone is France with her announced veto in advance of your metaphoric sentencing. Britain, another member of the bench with equal standing, declared with the United States. China and Russia, the other two peers -- though not sympathetic to the Anglo-American position -- left France to go it alone.

You need to either argue the plain facts better or come up with a metaphor that doesn't continually fail your key arguments.

DGB

M .Damian,
posting arguments like those only show how some republicans damn ,the entire party are ready to swallow such wild revisionist points of view.
France alone ? HEre is the link that didn't worked in the last message(pdf):
http://www.ips-dc.org/COERCED.pdf before council
http://www.ips-dc.org/COERCED2.pdf after
You'll find numbers.In you contest the validity as usual,then you'll remember how France was applaused march 2003 opposing US/Britain point of view.
The most interesting part in your argumentation is the patent will to be right whatever manipulations it would require:
from talking of GOING alone in war you pass to
France alone to VETO...
And every brainwasehed reader will forget that this doesn't change the fact that USA/Britain made it illegally on theier own to war and that VETOING is totally legitimate.
Besides , even if France had abstained like China and Russia did, the coalition of the willing would only had 8 votes MAX on the 9 needed to adopt the resolution.

It's clear your posts are more oriented to provocation than to truth unveiling.

And every brainwasehed reader will forget..blah, blah

Incoherent rantings of the intellectually defeated

M. Avenger,

Your fractured English makes it more than a little difficult to follow your fractured arguments, since you seem to be arguing severally.

Sometimes you defend your defective metaphor then sometimes you promote what you've determined are the facts of potential events.

Let's see, you seem to know for certain the outcome of a vote that never took place. Alas, unlike yourself, I do not have recourse to fancy French clairvoyance. I must rely on the more mundane facts as they transpired. So let's review the facts in question very slowly so they do not escape you a third time.

The only permanent members of the UNSC that unequivocally declared their vote were America and Britain (for the prosecution of UNSCR 1441's "grave consequences") and France (the exercise of her veto, not a vote). That would make France alone in her declared opposition. You seem to concede as much, which is as much argument as I offered on this point.

We understand that the French love being applauded, but, M. Avenger, even a franchouille such as yourself recognizes the difference between a vote and a clap.

If, as you maintain, the vote was a foregone conclusion then why did France announce her determination to use her vote-stopping veto? She needn't have abstained, she was free to vote "no". We keen to read your answer.

I'm not sure what point your link is supporting. But are you seriously advancing the Institute for Policy Studies as a dispassionate critic? And are you so ingenuous as to be ignorant as to how nations conduct business? If you are in need of an object lesson in bare-knuckled coercion, you have only to look here. But even granting the evidential status of the IPS report, this same report offers this caveat to its main premise, which you apparently have warmed to:

One important caveat: Not all support of the U.S. position has required explicit coercion and bribes. Some governments, including Spain, Italy, Australia, Denmark, Portugal, and Japan, have accepted the U.S. position as their own, despite the massive opposition of their publics.

The use of "including" conveniently allows the authors to short sheet any list of "uncoerced" nations. Notably absent are Great Britain, Poland, Romania, Czech Republic, and the Netherlands.

But now we stop and ask what exactly are you arguing here? You seem to be more interested in striking poses as a superior being even as you concede the defects of your argument. We don't pretend to anything as profound as unveiling the truth. We simply make our arguments based on established principles and the facts as we find them.

It's clear your posts are more oriented to advertsing M. Avenger as a clever little fellow. Try advancing arguments with some hang to them first.

DGB

M Damian ,
my english is fractured because 1ST of typerate , 2ND it is'nt my first language ,3RD because i've nor the time nor the will to correct this for your lecture conveniance.
On the topic "C'est comme Dans Le Merdier De Cote d'Ivoire" means nothing (unleast you decipher it).
(No need to begin the next post with pardon my french ,i know your manual).

Concerning the metaphor , it was just a mean to break an argument :you took it as a debatable material.

you seem to know for certain the outcome of a vote that never took place
Or maybe you want me to look so?
You're a joker:
you're able to know there are nuclear weapons somewhere in a cave in Iraq,but you are not able to predict a past vote after everyone spoke his mind?
In the same style :you were able to know France would veto ,but how could you know since the vote never took place ?(keep on smacking it).

If you google or decipher the docs i gave you:
there were 6 swing states and US officials said there were able to convince 4 of them.
So my mind was based on US officials predictions,which means positive discrimination.
So we have at best:
4 sure + 4 said to be possibily persuaded=
8 possibles.

The use of "including"
Well you knew it was engaged(i chose it because there is no way to find a neocon summarizing the failure in details) ,so there might be language manipulation there and there to emphasize,but the numbers nail it right above the head.

We don't pretend to anything as profound as unveiling the truth
If the individuals on this board didn't take theier opinions as granted ,they would'nt insult peoples questioning theier validity.

Originator of the Gaullist fantasy of conquest of the British Isles and terrorism against the U.S..

HAAAAAAA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!

(sorry, I missed that one).

Keep'em coming, Damian... it's like watching circus freaks, it's shocking and repulsive yet you want to see more ;-)

M. Avenger,

Since you've not the time nor the will to correct this for your lecture conveniance, and since you've an inability to follow much less construct a cogent argument, well, dear boy, just what are you doing here taking up our time and using up our will with your lazy prattle?

Regarding your catachrestic metaphor, perhaps you should hang big red signs on those parts of your discursus that are not to be part of any argument but simply ornaments of your dazzling intellect.

As bad at reading English as writing it, you obviously don't have the time or will to read what's posted. Let's see how do I know how the French would have voted when the vote didn't take place? Well M. de Villepin explicitedly pledged France's veto. The other declarations of peer members of the Security Council are as I've given them. Now go find where the non-permanent members explicitedly pledged their votes in advance. When you do, give M. de Villepin a call and inform him he needn't have jetted about Africa trying to buy those votes.

And your opinions, M. Avenger, do you take them for granted? Because you've presented no sound arguments for them. Yet you continue to protest our rebuttals while you concede your arguments' defects.

You insult and make generalizations about the Pave community but you yourself are as sensitive as a garden petunia. You are one sorry advertisement for French schooling and a nation of philosophers.

If you don't like what you find here, well, bugger off. That seems simple enough. But don't wet our threads with your big French tears.

My time and will for you has expired.

DGB