There's some very strange things going on with this board. Anyone else notice? I post, someone replies, I click on the email link and I'm taken to a much earlier post and not the one in the email - which doesn't exist. Later, it all shows back up again.

Then I guess you calling me a moron would just be an unprovoked personal attack.
Thanks, but no thanks. I'd rather we be a nation that says what it means and means what it says. We'll leave the appeasing to you guys.
Nope. All I know is that if France wasn't so heavily invested in Cote d'Ivorie they wouldn't be there.
Yea. Who cares what the legitimately elected president of a sovereign nation has to say? I with you, man.
That there's very little news, and even less moral outrage, on this because no one really cares what France does. As I said, it's a great revelation for me. The past two years suddenly make sense.

@marlin
So, I'll repeat mine. Here are some supporting articles for the Heritage piece:

http://www.diplomatie.fr/actual/doss...110701.gb.html

"Q. - How would you define France's new Africa policy?

THE MINISTER - ...Another major change: we no longer interfere in domestic crises.
...
Q. - Since you have abandoned the erstwhile interventionism, does it still make sense to have military bases in Abidjan and Libreville?

THE MINISTER - ... They were, in the past, sometimes used for old-style interventions."

http://www.ipsnews.net/africa/Focus/...n/note_6.shtml

"France is keeping up its old policy of ”only exploiting the natural and geopolitical resources of the continent,” says Francois Xavier Verschave, author of several books on the French government's African policy, including Noir Silence and La Francafrique. ”In Paris, many continue to believe that Africa is their private garden, where they can do whatever they want, where all crimes are possible and where impunity reigns.”

Don't worry, I won't let the fact that the first link comes from Le Monde (a very respectable, unbiased piece of toilet paper), and that the second is a French authority on Franco/African relations, sway my opinion on the veracity of the piece. See, unlike you, I understand that you have to evaluate the facts of a piece, and not the messenger. But don't let that get in your way. Cling fast to your opinions, they'll keep you warm at night.

@muspell
Yea, right. Of course, when Europe is involved we must not rush to judgement. When the US is involved there is no end to the speculation. I understand.
Well, it's not going to just come to you. Facts have to be looked for. Of course, it is much easier to sling arrows than to discuss facts. So, be warned, you will have to work harder when you get them.

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

unilateralism:
A tendency of nations to conduct their foreign affairs individualistically, characterized by minimal consultation and involvement with other nations, even their allies
Sience does NOT apply to "foreing affairs". Or would you like to label every US patent as unilateralism?

P.S. Im almost sure i posted a reply already :rolleyes:

Many posts and threads missing. Probably a data base incident. Too bad.

Listen to the investigative report from the bbc. They look at the facts. And then they find out where they lead by asking and looking. Not by guessing, like the heritage foundation's writers do. Then, when the case is more clear, it might be possible to tell just what is speculation from what is fact, no?
Er. Whatever you say.

@ fatboy
- Out of practical considerations to evaluate facts i first evaluate the source, it is quicker. Otherwise i might be flying to Brazil, in order to check if the treasure of the Amazons is really buried there as it says in my issue of Donald Duck magazine.

-Actually I detest organizations like The Heritage Foundation and their manipulation of fact to further their neo-conservative nationalist paranoia. You don't believe they are manipulation? I'll give you one example: In the article THF quotes 35 incidents and then describe only the three worst, leaving reader with the suggestion that all 35 were of similar magnitude. Stuff for people who want their opinions reinforced, not tested.

- The minister in the interview admits France made a grave mistake in Rwanda. He also says it is both accused of interference with and abandonement of Africa. Sort of logical. All European countries with colonies from the 16th/17th/18th century have (had) problems leaving these countries in a stable condition. The US acts like they have just invented colonialism. "Those who don't understand history are bound to repeat it."

- I am sort of neutral towards France's foreign policy. I did agree with them not to join the US in the invasion of Iraq.

__________________

This is getting a little irritating. After this, I'm abandoning this thread. I'm not sure why the posts keep disappearing; it's not happening on any other thread.

I also posted a reply to this. The word "unilateral" comes from uni (meaning "one"), and "lateral" (meaning "side"). So the word means, literally, "one side". But, let's assume you're correct. Then you would agree that if a group of nations got together to accomplish some goal. Then one nation decided to go it alone when the others didn't agree with it, that wouldn't be unilateralism?

That's what a reasonable person would do. As I implied, Europe can be really reasonable when they're accused of malfeasance. But that reason is quickly lost when America is involved. (Did I post a link to the Heritage website in regards to the Oil-for-Protection scam? I don't think I did.)

Nothing wrong with that. But you still consider and evaluate the facts, right? Or do you just dismiss them as you did here?
Now, that was funny.
Not this reader. And the author's clear point is not the magnitude of the French invasions, but the sheer quantity of times France involves itself militarily in other countries (notably African).
Can you point to one country we've colonized, please?

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

Iraq.

There is no doubt in my mind that France must stop interfering in African affairs. Since you obviously feel the same way, fatboy, you should see that the US were wrong to invade Iraq in the time and manner they did. Using force as a last resort may be necessary, but using it as a first resort is criminal.

I'm assuming, possibly incorrectly, that you're answering the question I posed to Marlin.

You really believe that Iraq is a colony of the US? You believe that the US has embarked upon empire building akin to the powers of Europe?

I just don't know what to say about that.
Where's your outrage? Why did you not start there rather than defend your country's position and make meaningless juxtapositions to the US?
Though I've written this countless times before, I will again clarify my position on this. I wish we didn't have to. I wish the UN would've taken a stand. I wish the UN would be the ruling body on what is, and what is not, acceptable behavior in the world. And I wish it were staffed with leaders who had the courage to stand up for what they believed in.

The UN chose not to fulfill my wishes and it is staffed with leaders concerned more for their place in the world than for the safety and peace of the world. If you also insist on arguing that war was a first resort then I'm, again, simply speechless at your inexplicable ignorance of the UN's history with Iraq. It honestly boggles the mind.

I'm only asking for a little consistency, reason, and logic from across the pond. There have been countless opportunities for Europeans to cry out, in the same strong voices they employed to deride the US, that the actions of their own countries were not circumspect. These opportunities, even when initiated by others, have gone on to yield not the anger I would assume, but the same types of defenses used by some Americans to defend the invasion of Iraq. It's hypocrisy in the extreme.

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

@fatboy

I do not literally believe Iraq is a colony of the US, the way I do not believe Europe still has colonies. France has no more colonies, but, as you know, french interests have bought numerous african leaders, and control their countries. What is really despicable is the way our government is complicit in this. Do I really have to persuade you that the US are doing exactly the same? The truth is that no country is more adept at this new and pernicious form of colonialism than the US are. Lots of practice.

Where's my outrage? Well, you'll have to excuse me, this is not a new topic here. It has been argued and fought over for the last 50 years. As for the "useless juxtapositions", hell, it was you who started this thread about baaad France and its unilateralism.

The way I recall it, the UN did take a stand. Against the US. They did so even though it is hardly ever in anybody's best interests to take a stand against the US. Bad for health. That must be what made them wrong in american eyes. Anyway, acceptable behavior is defined by the UN, not the US.