Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Liberator on November 08, 2004, 01:01:07 am
-
I saw this on my father's PeoplePC dialer thingy. It's kinda sad that I had to go to a Chinese paper to find this, so an0n would be able to h4x0r my parents internet account.
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-11/08/content_389410.htm
Apparently, France has invaded Ivory Coast. They don't have any room to complain about how we're handling Iraq now.
-
Yes, room to talk. if you read the article, you would know that france was here since 2002, with nearly 5000 troops, on a peacekeeping mission with the ONU troops (~6000). Here (http://www.liberation.fr/page.php?Article=252282) is what happened in this country. Warning : French newspaper.
What happened is that french soldiers were bombed by a military airplane of the Ivory governement, who decided to break the truce they had with rebels in their country (. The answer to this was the evacuation of the french civilians, the destruction of a military base, and dare I say, ONLY a military base, not the country, and lastly, when something like that happen, we don't use Rummy's solution : we send enough grounds troops to do the job - hence the 'invasion', in Lib's words.
-
:blah:
Firstly: Don't ever mention me again. I forbid it.
Secondly: I already knew about this.
-
Oh and: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,137818,00.html
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Apparently, France has invaded Ivory Coast. They don't have any room to complain about how we're handling Iraq now.
- What does an0n have to do with anything?
- This is hardly compareable to Iraq.
On a side note: "Ivorian forces" has got to be coolest sounding name I've heard in a long time.
-
I liked how the French were just taking the piss with their statement.
"We destroyed the entire Ivory Coast airforce - Two obsolete Soviet jets and 5 crappy helicopters".
-
The way I figure, that's pretty good for the French. They should cut their loses now and enjoy victory while it lasts.
-
They should glass the entire ****ing area with nuclear weapons then go to America and be all "Fu[color=1234123][/color]ckin' surrender-monkeys, are we? Cut your MOTHER-FU[color=1234123][/color]CKING POLLUTION!"
-
I prefer Ivory forces myself :p.
I think Lib's pissed at an0n for some reason.
As I said, the french troops were here to try to stop a civil war, which is beginning to resurface, while Iraq... er..... Say what was the official words for the invasion of Iraq ?
WMD : nothing found, programs were jokes at the best.
Democracy : And we're still waiting for the election....
Saddam : Hardly the worst dictator, N.Korea is way worse and still in place nonetheless.
:p
Do not anger the frenchman, as you're good and crunchy with tomato sauce and a few aromatic herbs. :D
-
KT, only problem in this is that if we recall our troops, this will trigger another civil war. Maybe we will have a few losses, but better that than the extermination of nearly half a country...:nervous:
-
/me waits for France to arise as the next World Power
-
Glass the area.
Simple. Clean. Effective. Stops people/America ****ing with France.
-
Well, it'd either stop us from ****ing with France, or we'd see another invasion of Normandy...
GWB would jump at that **** in half a second.
-
You do know that America is the only country *****ing that much at us, right ? Other may ***** a little, but nothing like what we've seen from america. Must be those british roots... You would be surprised by how much two country bickering like France and England wan work well together for many things.
-
I have nothing against France, per se. It's just that with the exception of Venom/Nico (is he even still here?) every French person I've ever met or spoken to has been a dick.
-
Eeerrrrr.... Well, I can't say that I find that fact very surprising, but I do'nt think we're worst than than the average country on the asshole attitude. But then, I could be wrong.
Glad to know I'm dicking, then :D
-
Info / background;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3991241.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3989487.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3987787.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3410953.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3986403.stm
(snippets from first article)
Ivory Coast President Laurent Gbagbo has appealed for calm after a weekend of violence against French targets.
In a televised address, he also justified his army's return to war.
Huge anti-French riots swept the Ivorian economic capital Abidjan after French troops destroyed five of the Ivorian armed forces' aircraft.
The French attacked in retaliation for an air raid by the Ivorian government on a target in the rebel-held north that killed nine French peacekeepers.
On Saturday night, tens of thousands of President Gbagbo's supporters marched on the main airport in Abidjan, which is under French control.
They also went on the rampage across the city, attacking French targets including setting fire to a French school and bookshop.
.
.
.
France said on Sunday the situation in Ivory Coast was "under control" after its forces fanned out across Abidjan to end the rioting.
Troops in armoured cars took over road junctions and gunboats moved into position near bridges.
.
.
.
The UN has backed France's tough response to attacks on its soldiers on Saturday, which virtually wiped out the small Ivorian air force.
The French acted after an Ivorian air raid on the north killed nine of their troops and wounded 22, and further damaged peace agreements reached with the rebels in July of last year.
-
All of this, and I mean everything - Iraq, Ivory Coast, Veitnam, Afghanistan, India, Pakistan, etc. etc. goes back to Colonial times. Everyone was after a piece of everything: France, Britain, Spain, Portugal, Holland had territories all over the world, and somehow that thought still lingers on today. I mean, why should France have ANYTHING to do with the Ivory Coast? It's in Africa ffs!
On the same note, the UK 'owns' the Falkland Islands, which is near Argentina - we even went to war over it. Also Iraq was under British rule at some point IIRC, the whole thing is borked up, and while all the governments keep hanging on to old colonial time territories, it won't get any better imo....
-
Originally posted by Clave
All of this, and I mean everything - Iraq, Ivory Coast, Veitnam, Afghanistan, India, Pakistan, etc. etc. goes back to Colonial times. Everyone was after a piece of everything: France, Britain, Spain, Portugal, Holland had territories all over the world, and somehow that thought still lingers on today. I mean, why should France have ANYTHING to do with the Ivory Coast? It's in Africa ffs!
On the same note, the UK 'owns' the Falkland Islands, which is near Argentina - we even went to war over it. Also Iraq was under British rule at some point IIRC, the whole thing is borked up, and while all the governments keep hanging on to old colonial time territories, it won't get any better imo....
Just of curiousity.....
France's watchful eye on Ivory Coast (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3988797.stm)
It's all about national self-interest - usually economic - really. Albeit in the case of the Falklands there was arguably justification as that was a wholly 'British' island(s), invaded by a dictator.... a bit like Denmark or Norway invading the Shetlands (er....except the 'dictator' part, obviously). In some cases it ends up where a country has so many ex-pats in a colongy/former colony, that it become politically necessary to be seen as 'protecting' them - the furore over Mugabe in Zimbabwe being a good example, I guess.
-
Originally posted by Genryu
I think Lib's pissed at an0n for some reason.
Not really, just that he has something of a reputation as a grey hat h4x0r and I didn't want to expose my parents to that by linking to a site that they were logged into.
Originally posted by Genryu
As I said, the french troops were here to try to stop a civil war, which is beginning to resurface...
What the French and much of the rest of the world need to re-learn is that sometimes preventing a war doesn't do anything but force the causes of the war to fester instead of being done away with like would happen in a conflict. Sometimes it's better to do nothing than to force a very unhappy medium.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
What the French and much of the rest of the world need to re-learn is that sometimes preventing a war doesn't do anything but force the causes of the war to fester instead of being done away with like would happen in a conflict. Sometimes it's better to do nothing than to force a very unhappy medium.
Wars just tend to lead to a different problem. Depending on the nature of the war, it can be an even worse problem... look at the Kashmir situation, for example.
Or Iraq, where a totalitarian dictatorship has been replaced with a lawless state which is suffering from both a lack of key services (police, water, power, etc) and violence.
War is certainly no better a solution than a peaceful compromise - provided the right compromise is found, peace is always better.
-
"In no way is France there to destabilize Ivory Coast and its institutions or take sides,"
I like this line the most.
-
Sometimes, aldo, there can be no compromise.
-
[color=66ff00]How do you confuse peacekeepers with oil thieves? :wtf:
[/color]
-
Everyones got to have someone to hate.......
-
Originally posted by Maeglamor
[color=66ff00]How do you confuse peacekeepers with oil thieves? :wtf:
[/color]
Heeheehee!
This development just tickles me pink and maroon. Weee!
:nervous:
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Heeheehee!
This development just tickles me pink and maroon. Weee!
:nervous:
[color=66ff00]You scare me sometimes. :lol:
*walks away confused*
[/color]
-
LOL I wonder who gets to lock the thread if it becomes a flame? ;)
Oh yes, and since Sandwich is in a silly mood.....
Monkey! :nervous:
-
Originally posted by Maeglamor
[color=66ff00]You scare me sometimes. :lol:
*walks away confused*
[/color]
'Twas the idea of France invading another country.
-
Umm, that's happened many times before surely?
-
Indeed. People seem to forget that the entire course of Western civilization was set in motion by the Norman invasion of England.
-
Plus, and I don't want to direspect, but, I don't think there was a better general than Napoleon in history. I mean, the guy invaded most of Europe, and he was only brought down by an alliance of many countries. Not bad for cheese eating surrendering monkey, hey ? :p
-
The whole Franco/Ivory-Coast situation is essentially a US/Indonesia situation, unfortunately for the French political engine the difference is the French have actually sent in regular army to deal with a public rebellion.
-
And Napoleon lost. There went his chance for being the greatest general ever. He didn't do anything the romans hadn't or the germans wouldn't...
-
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
Indeed. People seem to forget that the entire course of Western civilization was set in motion by the Norman invasion of England.
The Normans weren't French. They were actually vikings who had settled in France because the french had given them land in the hope that they would protect them against further viking attack.
-
The French are the reason you don't speak Arabic, you know.
They stopped Islam back in the early Middle Ages after it managed to swallow up Spain.
-
the french of today are not the french of pre-ww1
-
Sadly, the Great European Civil War In Two Acts did much to change the place...
-
I love the way the yanks hate france because they didnt support the invasion of Iraq, and just ignore the fact that they were right behind them in invading afghanistan, home of the guys behind 9/11 and remain the second largest contributor of foreign troops to the US operation. I guess cheap oil is more important than fighting terrorism.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
the french of today are not the french of pre-ww1
They're not the WW2 French either. Neither are the Americans, should I add :doubt:
[note: the following is a reply to the general idea of that thread, not to anybody in particular]
Oh, and I want to clear a little thing: the French troops there were not on a peacemaking mission. That was a year or so ago. They were there just like US troops that are still in Germany. Excepted one more factor: we have french civilians there. A lot of them. And we know how ****ed up tribal conflicts can be in Africa ( I don't need to explain, I hope, with the recent events? ). We didn't take side when the rebels fought the regular troops. Disregarding of the side, we've crushed ( yeah, we've already done that before, so what's the big deal with those crappy planes? Wake up, pals! ) anybody who attacked us. Last year, it was the rebels, they attacked french patrols, they were erased. Last week, it was the national airforce. The French army job, right now, is to give shelter to foreigners ( or even some Ivorian ones ) civilians ( there's US ones in the lot, maybe that will strike you, since you only care about your own asses ), and PROTECT them until they're moved out of the country, or until the situation cools down ( coz most of those idiots don't want to leave, they prefer their homes to their lives, well, too bad for them ). There's one way to protect people from armed groups: you destroy those groups. So yes, we're not in our country, and yes, we use force. But we don't try and influence the politics there, we don't say how the ivory people should live, we don't say that the current president is a dick and we don't kick him out, we don't blame the rebels for being such barbars. We kill any that will try and hurt our ( and YOUR, for god sake ) people. ***** about that.
Now compare this situation to Irak all you want, doing so would prove only one thing, that you have not the smallest bit of knowledge of foreign policy, and there's no use in arguing with clueless people.
Why do I have to waste the short time I have to reply to such foolish threads anyway? :doubt:
-
I think simply the fact that we can go back and fourth with conflicting details of French military history would indicate that its war record is really no different from that of any other country.
But it's really a matter of perspective. It seems popular in America to measure the "value" of a society by its military performance. This, in my opinion, is yahooism, and in terms of cultural contribution, France is a gold mine.
-
I'll say it again: This is France's Indonesia. If you don't understand, go try figure it out. Please.
-
Originally posted by ngtm1r
The French are the reason you don't speak Arabic, you know.
I'm half Iranian. Who says I don't speak Arabic? :lol:
(I don't actually but that's more due to my dad's laziness and I'm rather annoyed about not having been taught it when I was young, when it would have been no effort to learn.)
Originally posted by ngtm1r
They stopped Islam back in the early Middle Ages after it managed to swallow up Spain.
Wouldn't deny it. However considering that back in the day Islam was actually a much more tolerant religion than Christianity that might not have been such a good move. :)
-
Iranians speak Farsi iirc
-
more tolerant than Christianity? is that just because they never really got the chance to set up their own version of the inquisition and the crusades? people are the same everywhere, everytime, they use religion as an excuse to make war.
-
1000 years ago.
and they did, you know infedel can be translated basicly to heritic
-
Originally posted by icespeed
more tolerant than Christianity? is that just because they never really got the chance to set up their own version of the inquisition and the crusades? people are the same everywhere, everytime, they use religion as an excuse to make war.
The fact is that the muslim of that time were far more tolerant of other religions than those religions were of them. For instance the muslims had no problem with christian pilgrimages to Jeruselem etc.
Sure there might have been some who would have used religion as an excuse to be extremely crappy to each other but if all we're debating is the point that the French stopped the spread of Islam then considering the two religions at that time it was a case of a repressive religion stopping the spread of a less repressive (not to mention better educated) one.
Originally posted by Gank
Iranians speak Farsi iirc
I was mearly making light of the fact that just cause I list London as my location it's rather dangerous to assume what ethnicity I have (or what languages I speak). I'd bet serious money that ngtm1r wouldn't have written things quite the same way if he had been in posession of that piece of information :)
Besides I know for a fact that in addition to other languages my dad could speak arabic (which is why I'm somewhat annoyed I wasn't taught when I was young).
-
The Islamic caliphate was once the most technically and culturally advanced empire in the world. I heard stories of Muslims using a building for services on Friday and then allowing Mass to be held on Sunday. Where did things go wrong...
-
They wanted to stay back there in the 14th and 15th Century. The rest of the world didn't. Instant schism.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
the french of today are not the french of pre-ww1
neither is anyone else younger than 90.
-
Hey, Venom - good to see ya around again. :yes:
Originally posted by Nico
Disregarding of the side, we've crushed ... anybody who attacked us. ...There's one way to protect people from armed groups: you destroy those groups... We kill any that will try and hurt our... people. ***** about that.
Ironic... that could be applied to what Israel does against terrorists. But when we do it, it's "wrong". Gotta love the double standards rampant in the world today.
-
The criticism against Israel has always been that it's ineffective and (more importantly) disproportionate, though. Not wishing to start another argument here, but the criticism is aimed* around the effects on civillians and the resulting social (political?) fallout which can serve to strengthen anti-Israeli / Jewish sentiment and thus the extremist groups cause.
If the French response is proportionate, it's ok. Were they to, for example, try and remove the Ivorian government, it'd probably be going beyond the bounds of proportionality.
*EDIT; at least from me and most moderate people. I wouldn't have any objections to the Israeli strategy if it worked, but I don't think it does, particularly within an international context.
-
Hmmmmm....
/me is forced to see that Sandwich had a point.
Personally, my main problem with the Israelian as of now is Sharon. Before the guy there were at least TALKS with the Palestinians. Now, it's reduced to bombarding the leaders while they're in cities. If he wants to off them that much, call the snipers. At least, no one will ***** about killed civilians, which, be it in Irak, Isreal, or where ever else, is the main thing people ***** about.
-
Well, I don't like Sharon atall, and I don;t think there will be a chance of peace whilst he is in power. I do understand one of the key problems with regards to peace-talks / ceasefires, though - namely that there is a disparate group of nutters out there, and it's been proven very difficult to get all of them to obey a ceasefire at the same time.
But, er, this is risking creating another Israel - Palestine debate thing, and history has shown those are never resolved :).
So, back on topic - if France restrict any use of their troops to being to protect and evac the foreign / french citizens being threatened, it's ok. If it's attacking military targets which have attacked the peacekeepers (as they were initially), then it's justifiable within self defence. If it extends to attacking unarmed mobs then it's probably only justifiable as the last resort of self defense - i.e. no way to safely deter them or to evac.
IMO.
-
Weeeh! I managed to get my hands on a PC at uni! man, those are some crappy things :doubt:
Anyway:
Originally posted by Sandwich
Hey, Venom - good to see ya around again. :yes:
Ironic... that could be applied to what Israel does against terrorists. But when we do it, it's "wrong". Gotta love the double standards rampant in the world today.
Yeah, but we ( Fench ) never really condemned Israel actions, afaik ( one drunk guy just called it a ****ty little country, once :p ).
It's different coz in our case, it's once in ten years, for Israel, it's once a week you hear about military actions and stuff. Mind you, I don't care what either Palestinians or Israelians do, they just don't make any sense, either in action or in words ( ex: last week, I heard a Palestian representative criticizing that wall of yours, coz it separated them from Israel, making them unknwon people, and therefore turning them into enemies. But that wall was made coz they were considered as enemies in the first place :confused: ). Then Sharon decides to clear the... Gazaa sp) strip, and people ( both israelians AND Palestinians... ) start complaining that it's a move to seize another part ( don't remember the name, I recall something like Geor...jor... bah, whatever ) even stronger. So one gives, and the other wants more. And regardless of anything, they all happily keep bombing each other to high heaven. So no, I don't think it's quite comparable with France, coz if there's one thing you can't deny, it's that France has always tried to get through crisis w/o using weapons. Sometimes they failed, obviously ( the colonian wars, Indochina, first half of the Algeria conflict ), and sometimes they succeeded. But, at least nowadays, ALWAYS will France leave room for peaceful talks to try and ease situations. ALWAYS.
That aside, there's a funny thing: Chirac said that the current Ivorian government was on his way to become a totalitarian country, to which the Ivory president ( Bagbo, no idea how it's spelled ) responded, saying it was offensing him. Why didn't we reply that bombarding us offensed us too? :doubt:
-
I've asked this a few times before without answer, when is the next israeli election?
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
I've asked this a few times before without answer, when is the next israeli election?
It's not really an answer, but I think the last elections were Jan 2003. So something like 2007, maybe?
-
Yeah, the 2003 elections were early elections. Previously they were in 2001.