Who do the French people think they are? Going into OTHER countries and using combat aircraft and troops and meddling in their affairs!
You did read the article you linked to, right?
Because right now, you are sounding like a fucking idiot.
What are you, stupid or something? From your link:
It’s not like France invaded the Ivory Coast and started this shit. They were there, trying to help, and got shot up for their trouble. They then neutralized the threat. So, what’s the problem? The US has peformed any number of similar actions.
Somehow, I think the OP is trying for satire.
Maybe the folks in Ivory Coast don’t want the foreigners there meddling in their sovereign affairs? Forget the reasons the French are there, the IC’ers don’t want them there. Time to pull out of the quagmire.
So you’re going with “sounding like,” eh? Interesting choice.
duffer’s opinion of his own political wit remains as strong as ever.
Wow, got me on that one.
We didn’t have one of those resolutions from the security council authorizing us to invade.
The french didn’t invade a soverign nation in order to bring about regime change (based on cherrypicked intel and ever-shifting-reasons)
Peacekeepers =/= an invading army whose goal is the total conquest of a nation.
Bzzzzzzz!
Bad analogy!
Five yard penalty!
The US House and Senate authorized military force. That takes precedence over the UN for me anyday.
I can respect that stance. I don’t agree, and I think that having a UN mandate grants authority and legitimacy that a unilateral military policy does not.
However, we didn’t authorize our troops to go in as peacekeepers, but conquerors/liberators/regime-changers (or what have you).
As such, your analogy is still false to facts.
Having UN legitmacy and “authority” is all well and good, but rarely gets anything done when the bare knuckle drag down fight has to be won. I’m not sure on the UN’s role in Sudan, but I have to assume that there are sanctions on that regime.
Other UN sanctioned countries (please correct me, not an expert on this). North Korea , Iran (or soon to be), Iraq (what, 12 years worth and major scandal?). The UN loves to use diplomacy to resolve conflict. And were it reliable and fail safe, I’d donate my life savings to it. But they would rather the likes of Saddam go on with their torturing, murderous dictatorships, than be responsible themselves for a single life lost in the name of taking him out. This is a lofty goal, and as much as I’d like to see it happen, it won’t. Ever. And no, I’m not an animal. War will cause unintended deaths (unless you’re using women and children as shields)
For thousands of years man has warred with himself when his enemy had something he wanted. And sometimes he was an enemy *because * of what the other wanted, not any inherent animosity. Point is, there will always be war as long as anybody wants something someone else has. It’s human nature. Ideal? Of course not. Reality? You bet your ass. Until you can convince all 6+ billion people on the planet to your exact thinking, there will be war and injustice.
I just prefer to have a government that protects me before making peace with all. Once I and my family is secure, I’ll start worrying about the rest of the world’s residents that want to kill me.
Call me an extremist if you like, but I know there are people out there that don’t give a shit about me and would rather see me dead.
Remind us again exactly how Iraq was a threat to you and your family. What makes you think you’re safer now, after US action has inspired a fresh generation of extremists?
duffer: I agree with some of what you say, disagree with other bits. But I am very tired right now. If you want to debate this in full, I’m certainly game, but not today.
My point was only that your analogy doesn’t stand up.
Peacekeeping forces are not the same as forces whose job is to conquor a country and set up a new government there.
This is a fundemental difference in mission.
Oh, let’s see. Insane was paying $25,000 to any Palestinian homicide bomber’s family. (Or was it any and all terrorists?) He was pimp-slapped by GHW Bush in '91 and later orchestrated an assassination attempt. Sounds like he had a little animosity towards the US. I was never a fan of Clinton, but would take this little slight just as personally. (Anyone remember innocent Bill in Somalia?) How many terrorists were inspired? I guess Isreal is a banned concern for the US? Or the soldiers on the USS Cole? Or the families in Khobar?
Umm…after 9/11 we haven’t had an attack on American soil? That makes me feel pretty damn good for my family. We had 8 years of pandering after the first WTC bombing. (Is that fuck still juicing the taxpayers in prison?) Sodom cheering gleefully over the deaths of all those on 9/11? Women and children being :
*Dismembered
*Raped
*Anally raped
*Previous 2 in front of husbands, spouses and parents
*Lined up and shot so they fall into mass graves
*Pushed off high buildings while bound to thier death (while videtaped)
*Castrated
*Tortured (in any other way)
- Probably other things you and I as sane people could never dream of (I hope)
No, can’t see any reason to want him out of power. He was a benign, and at best future, threat. We had no right to remove him from power. Poor guy. I’m starting to feel bad for him now.
Would you feel better if he had invaded Poland? We had protesters over that little skirmish as well.
As you can see from my previous post, I’m taking this into a debate on Iraq. Maybe it’s best we just get a whole new thread to do it?
Thanks for avoiding the question, duffer. Very good.
Fuck! :smack: Didn’t avoid it, just posted it to the wrong thread. Hang on. I’ll see if I can find it.
hehehe. Post #14. Nice try getting me confused. (It worked, but I have 2 other threads I’m jumping between)
Dipshit. :wally
Once we dismiss the parts of post #14 that aren’t actually answering Jervoise’s simple and direct question about “you and your family”, we’re left with:
:dubious:
You seriously want me to give you a number of how many terrorists were inspired? Will do, as soon as you tell me how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. (Or your head, same thing) :rolleyes: