Did I.. did I just say something about selective use of sources in order to prove a point already given? No, can't have done that, or I would clearly have laughed until the loss of oxygen would have given me brain damage.

Anyway, you know the reason why there's a UN mandate for keeping forces in the area, right? Not that it matters, of course, since the UN is insignificant in both Falluja and the Ivory Coast - and everywhere else, come to think of it. Yes, this is just two equally good examples of imperialist governments pounding their rebellious subjects into submission. You're right of course - Cocoa, Oil, what's the difference. In other words, it is beside the point and insignificant that the forces there might have gone outside of their mandate.

The democratic france is acting under a mandate of the democratic un.
Democratically speaking, they are not acting on their behalf but on the behalf of the world, hence the famous dilution of responsibility proper to democracy.
Again, the ganglord the democratic us signed the un mandate to give his lieutnant that shield, proving that the democratic us are willing to give another chance to france to prove their allegiance.
Whatever the democratic french do, this will be diluted in the sea of world responsibility. Very different situation from the democratic us who have been acting on their own behalf.

@fatboy

Ah well, I don't want to get into this, really. But, you see, france is not acting unilaterally, or, in my opinion with excessive force (yet). Considering that the madman Gbagbo sent hordes of machete-wielding civilians after french soldiers and civilians alike, I think the death toll is quite low.

Can't say I get your crack about the sovereignty of Ivory Coast, either. The soldiers are there at the request of the country's President, and by mandate of the UN. Also, I view the fact that both warring factions (the rebels and the government )have blamed France repeatedly for favouring the other side, as a good indication that the troops are doing their job (which is of course, to frustrate the efforts of the bloodthirsty fucks to wipe each other out).

Last, there is no possible comparison between this and Iraq. This is no invasion.

As I said, of course!

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

Iraq isn't an "invasion," it is more of a bitch slap.

__________________

Get me a hardtop with a decent engine, and make sure it's got a big trunk.

@sandals

You go tell that to the families of the civilians that got bombed to pieces.

Yea, Sandals. This --> http://www.expatica.com/source/site_...lleges+adviser is bitch slapping. What we're doing is genocide.

*edit - here's some more bitch slapping --> http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlates...605431,00.html

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

What particular language are you speaking now?

This one was interesting, in any case:
(WP) "France hit back within hours, wiping out Ivory Coast's newly strengthened air force -- two Russian-made Sukhoi jet fighters and at least three helicopter gunships -- on the ground." ... " On Sunday, loyalist mobs rampaged in a second day of looting and burning, outraged by the crushing French military response." ... "A reporter watched marauders clutching machetes and iron bars enter one neighborhood, demanding if any French lived there.

"If there are any whites in this neighborhood, we're going to get . . . them," one man shouted."
(Guardian) "France wiped out the nation's air force on the tarmac in retaliation, sparking anti-French rampages by thousands in the fiercely nationalist south." ... "French forces opened fire Tuesday as thousands pressed around the center in protest, witnesses said.

It was not clear what sparked the clash. The French military refused comment, saying it was trying to determine what happened."

@fatboy

The "crushing response" or "excessive reaction " thing is nonsense.

1.France was mandated to enforce the cease-fire, so destroying the tools ( the "airforce") by which it was violated makes perfect sense. Nowhere did I read that this action was a retaliation of any kind.

2.Having just violated the cease-fire which he had signed, launched a hate campaign through the official radio aimed at foreigners in general and the french in particular (which btw included calls to murder and rape), and having succeeded at starting riots (which the french forces had spent weeks to suppress upon their arrival in the country), President Gbagbo's word has lost all credibility to me. Why you would consider his ambassador's comments worth hearing is beyond me.

Further, France's Defense Minister, Alliot-Marie, mentioned that the bombing incident that precipitated the crisis and killed 10 french soldiers was probably deliberate. The plane bombed the position on the third pass.