UN resolution authorizing French use of force;
No attempt by the French to even approach the Security Council;
No evidence of WoMD;
No accusations of genocide (except against the government France is protecting); and
No recent attacks by Ivory Coast against its neighbors.
What Ivory Coast does have in common with Iraq is oil.
So why haven’t you people opposed to war in Iraq started any threads about this one?
You do see a difference, I hope, between a country attemping to broker a peace, defending the current administration of a country, and using a massive force of 2,500 to blow up three whole pickup trucks, and a different country declaring that it is marshalling multiple army and marine divisions to invade a country to impose a new regime?
2.) World attention is focused on the US, a nation that has become a magnet for the world’s criticism ever since it became apparent that it was the sole remaining superpower.
(a) France hasn’t invaded the Ivory Coast. It seems to be acting as some sort of peacekeeping force to keep the various rebel forces from causing any more trouble. And presumably, the sovereign government of the Ivory Coast invited France to intervene. If Saddam Hussein invited the 3rd Armored Division to come into Iraq, well, that’s hardly an invasion, is it?
(b) The notion that opposition to a U.S. invasion of Iraq obligates one to give equal time to every pissant military dispute in the world is, frankly, december-esque. C’mon, Sua, you can do better than this.
It’s my understanding that the whooping show of force via 2500 troops is primarily to protect and evacuate French citizens. It’s not an invasion force, and it’s not an occupying force.
The government took power in an election deemed not to be free and fair. Its policy was ethnic discrimination and deportation. Thank God the French were around to protect them.
The French put in their troops under the pretense of protecting French citizens. Guess they got a little ornery once they were there.
In any event, why the distinction (if it exists)? If the Serbs had invited in the Russians in Kosovo to protect them, that would have been fine?
A “pissant military dispute” that involves a permanent member of the UN Security Council who couldn’t be bothered before it decided to use military force to protect a vile regime, and protect French oil interests - unlike the US, which has gone to the Security Council. I’d say the relevance is obvious and compelling.
Hmmm, the U.S. is a permanent member of the Security Council, we protect vile regimes all over the world, and U.S. oil interests . . . and yet you don’t see many people demanding UN approval of our actions in propping up Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, do you?
Good try SuaSponte but France can do no wrong in some peoples opinions. We all know that Frances form of government is so far superior than ours (U.S.). :rolleyes: Hell maybe France will build a nuclear reactor there too.
The resolution authorized expelling Iraq from Kuwait, but it by no means prohibited marching on Baghdad. That was Bush the Elder’s call, not the UN’s.
And more to the point, what the heck does that have to do with the absence of demands for UN approval of stationing US troops in such vile regimes as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait for the sake of our own oil interests?
It was a little more complicated than that and I think you know it. By comparison the recent resolutions don’t prohibit the U.S. from unilaterally marching to Baghdad now. But it isn’t that simple. It seems that the same people that are demanding G.W. Bush get U.N. approval now dog G. Bush for following the U.N. resolution in 1991 which only authorized the expulsion of Iraqi troops from Kuwait.
?? What’s this? Who’s demanding U.N. approval? Did we need the U.N.'s approval to station troops in Western Germany, Japan?
Forgive me if I’m jumping to conclusions here, but are you calling me a liar? Are you claiming I’m not posting in good faith? Please do me the honor of clarifying that statement.
Of course not. But by the OP’s ridiculous reasoning, he is claiming that those of us who oppose the Bush War should be clamoring for U.N. approval of those things. My point is merely that such reasoning is silly, given the vast difference between being invited to station troops or serve as peacekeepers by a sovereign nation and invading a nation against its will.
I do not know you IRL so to claim either would be rude. I lurk more than post and seem to read a lot of threads that you post to. The impression I get from those posts is that you ain’t no dummy. So when you claim that G. Bush could have ignored what was going on in the world and just march into Baghdad, I believe that you’re purposely simplifying the complicated in order to further your point of view on this subject. I do it all the time myself.
Fuck Clinton, its all his fault! He should’ve took care of Sadamm when the inspectors left the first time.
Sua, I have to think you’re simply trying to provoke a reaction here. Certainly you can see a huge difference between deciding to invade and indefinitely occupy another country, and come up with reasons and legitimacy later; and deciding that a police action of limited duration, and with intent to leave when it’s done, in a country within one’s traditional sphere of influence (even post-colonization) is necessary and limited enough to require no other country’s assistance.
I’ll join the chorus of “You’re better than that, Sua”.
