A year?! That's way short of the "go-it-alone" time limit. 12 years minimum must be suffered through with no action before a nation can act unilaterally.

In other news:
http://trans-int.blogspot.com/2004/1...-incident.html
Does everyone hear the roar of moral outrage coming from Europe? Yea, I don't either.

I thought this was an interesting article too: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Europe/wm219.cfm

"Since launching an assault on Gabon in 1964, Paris has militarily intervened on the African continent an average of once a year -- 35 times in 34 years."

Good lord! Though the math doesn't seem to work out, that's still a pretty staggering amount of pacification. You guys should just colonize the continent - it would save in transportation costs.

What's that? Oh, you tried that already? Hmmm. I thought the US was the only country with imperialistic ambitions?

__________________
In this country, we don't need reasons to make things legal; we need reasons to make things illegal. - Startup

@fatboy

tsk, tsk, bullshit, bullshit, and more bullshit. Let's not mix everything here. By going ahead with the aforementioned project unilaterally, France does not break international law, invades no country, kills noone. Comparing this to the US invading Iraq is plain dumb. You want to defend the right of the US to slaughter unilaterally, suit yourself. You don't have to turn into a moron in the process.

@fatboy

Seen the video on that (slightly partisan) site of yours. It doesn't show anything relevant. It doesn't show where the first shots came from. It doesn't show who the french soldiers where shooting at. It shows two (I think) corpses, and a few wounds (a dozen, perhaps). What it very much doesn't show is french soldiers firing at the several hundred people who are standing not fifty meters from them.
The wounded civilians could have been hit by either the french soldiers or their assailants (they claim they were fired upon). The headless corpse (gruesome, I'll grant you) was most likely hit by a french sniper, and I very much doubt he was deliberately targeted without reason. On the video, there is no weapon near the corpse, but it is not the same sequence than the shoothing. Nice propaganda, that's all it is.

Can't respond due to the fact this is not the latest post

__________________
SEX IS NOT A SIN!
LICK IT UP


GIGGLES

@lulu - Yes, of course. France sends troops (34 times in 35 years) into Africa; aids and abets slaughter on a genocidal scale; destroys a sovereign state's air force; decides to go it alone when others won't listen to their arguments; and they're the acme of international cooperation. The US sends troops into Iraq, after countless years and 14 UN resolutions, and it's an empirialistic, lone tornado cutting a swath of destruction through the world with a Hitleresque leader.

France guns down hundreds of civilians; lies about it; and then claims self-defense. The US inadvertantly, even to the point of self-endangerment, kills hundreds of civilians and it's unilateral slaughter.

I understand.

You know, until now, I haven't equated the Iraq invasion with France's decision to go it alone on the "science project". Despite efforts by others to do so. I have merely pointed out that France is quite capable of acting unilaterally.

In another thread, I have shown how France likes to meddle in the affairs of Africa. This would probably be the best place to show the similarities between the Iraq invasion and France's own military foreign policy.

Rather than take these opportunities to criticize your own government for obviously wrong policies (if, indeed, you consider military action against sovereign states and leaving the negotiation table when you don't get your way to be wrong), you defend it and call me a moron. Okay. I can understand that. After all, I did sling the first stone by calling your country irrelevant. Though, I think that's more a general insult than your very personal insult to me. No matter. I can take steps to educate myself. France, I fear, will always be irrelevant.

PS - I'm still waiting on your explanation as to why our constitution needs to be re-written.

__________________
In this country, we don't need reasons to make things legal; we need reasons to make things illegal. - Startup

@fatboy

1.Constitution thingy can wait
2.The relevance, or not, of France is not really a concern to me. Don't quite see what it means, anyway. If you really want to talk about it, I'd say France has a disproportionate activity on the international scene, considering the size of its economy and military. Maybe this (apparent) anomaly just means your current administration could use a few pointers on the usefulness and correct use of diplomacy.
3.The destruction of the Ivorian airforce was not vengeful, or a retaliation. It was a preventive measure to avoid being bombed again purposefully, and cleary within the mandate of the french troops.

Sorry about the multiple posts, long posts get lost, probably my internet settings.

@fatboy

Did you know that the plane that bombed the french position made three bombing runs before engaging? Did you know that an Ivorian reconnaissance drone had previously overflown the camp and that the tapes were recovered when the french troops took over the airport ? The bombing was no accident.

@fatboy

Don't give me crap about ingerence. Gbagbo himself asked for a UN interposition force when it suited him, but now wishes he hadn't. Well, tough. We'll leave when the UN ask us to (or probably sooner, the way things are going), but certainly not at Gbagbo's request. What is really missing from this picture is...unilaterality. So, what was your point, really?

There are some posts missing here (after fatboy's on 1-12). Notably mine ;).

@fatboy
One point I'll repeat: A source with this ( http://www.heritage.org/about/ ) mission statement is not a source of journalism, but of propaganda.

__________________

Not much to report on, really. In Norway, there has been reported on rumours, yes, but note that they will be named rumours when they are instead of allegations and conspiracies. I've got a pretty good link to a radio- programme right here, though(enter british journalism at it's finest ;) ). You'll need a realmediaplayer of some kind.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/pr...for_food.shtml
Oh, I would. My mistake is that I think everyone else would like so as well.