user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
I'm not a bit surprised by their hypocrisy.
So, the fact that France launched an immoral war against a country which posed it no threat, retroactively justifies America's having done the same? Herzog, remind me to someday explain to you the concept of "Two wrongs don't make a right".
In this particular ballot I cannot see where herzog claimed it was justification.
Not in so many words, maybe. But that's unmistakeably where he's headed with this.
That having been said: you win, Herzog. The French are hypocrites. Satisfied?
We are all hypocrites! but what annoys most of the world is the way americans blame others rather than admit their own hypocracy! This ballot is a perfect example! I agree with neal_anderthal on this! This ballot seeks to be trying to compare iraq with the ivory coast! It isn`t comparable! What next? the falklands war? There are french people living in the ivory coast... How many americans lived in iraq?
Hardly unilateral is it when the UN has backed France's response to quell the upserge in violence, since French scools have been attacked and French peacekeepers have been killed.
by isay on Mon Nov 08, 04 3:02am
[+]
No, there are actually more U.N troops in the country than there are French. They have been there for some time as peackeepers between the North and the South of the country.
Apparantly there are mobs roaming the street looking for foreigners to kill. The French have been authorised by the U.N to use whatever force to stop the current unrest. They are not invading and they are not overthrowing the government. No Hypocrisy.
"France has declared war on the Ivory Coast, that's how it looks to us," says Sery Bahi, a senior adviser to President Laurent Gbagbo, speaking by phone from Abidjan.
Even after Ivory Coast declared its independence in 1960, France maintained a major degree of control over the economy. Some 20,000 expatriates lived in the country until 2002 and owned some 600 businesses, many in key industries such as shipping and cocoa. France also propped up the long-serving strongman president, Felix Houphouët-Boigny, whose death in 1993 caused a power struggle that ultimately led to the upheaval of recent years.
Angry mobs armed with machetes and clubs hunted foreigners through the streets of Ivory Coast's main cities yesterday to avenge the destruction of the country's air force by the French military.
Thousands of European residents cowered in homes and hotels as rampaging looters and militia groups set fire to property and ordered white people from cars at knife-point to rob and taunt them."
Looks like an imperialist quagmire to me. The protest from the antiwar, anti imperialist, anti-american left has been overwhelming. No, not overwhelming, what's that other word? Oh yeah, non-existent.
And given that this is a UN mission as you claim wnc, doesn't the fact that the UN is getting their scrawny asses kicked by some machete wielding tribesmen with no modern weapons and no airforce give credence to the notion that they would have been worthless in iraq, even if they threw themselves into it without reserve?
Think of it this way: if you like to bet on boxing, and your guy gets taken down by a 60 pound pygmy, should you really bet on him being able to take on mike tyson?
The UN isnt a bunch of gung ho idiots with machine guns and grenades! they are a peace keeping force and their role is defensive! Things arent black and white when it comes to global politics! What were theyre reasons for rioting? does it mean you can just shoot first and ask questions later! This all may seem odd to the majority of `right`(sic) thinking americans! But here in the real world we try and see both sides!
I`m not sure which reports you use herzog but the bbc paints an entirely different picture! http://news. bbc.co.uk/2/hi/ africa/2773731.stm
(remove spaces) I wish youd quote your sources rather than just dismissing others herzog!
"Angry mobs armed with machetes and clubs hunted foreigners through the streets of Ivory Coast's main cities yesterday to avenge the destruction of the country's air force by the French military." where is this quote from? i see none of this in any other reports!! and ive looked at a few.
Just ignore him, he's basically an idiot with issues.
" So, the fact that France launched an immoral war against a country which posed it no threat, retroactively justifies America's having done the same? Herzog, remind me to someday explain to you the concept of "Two wrongs don't make a right". "
Hypocrisy is the issue here, not justification. How can France say we were wrong for what we did, and then turn around and do the same thing? It doesn't wash. But here's the reason they went against us in Iraq: Oil For Food Program.
Think of it this way: if you like to bet on boxing, and your guy gets taken down by a 60 pound pygmy, should you really bet on him being able to take on mike tyson?
by herzog on Nov 08, 2004
Metaphor boy strikes again! It's like when....
It`s not the same walterpeck not even remotely the same! Dont try to justify the war in iraq by comparing it to a minor uprising because it , to use your words, doesn`t wash!
'The UN isnt a bunch of gung ho idiots with machine guns and grenades'
No, they're a bunch of cowardly idiots.
'they are a peace keeping force and their role is defensive!'
What do you call a peacekeeping force that consistently fails at keeping the peace?
' I wish youd quote your sources rather than just dismissing others herzog!'
How about the guardian? It doesn't get more leftwing than that, well perhaps some north korean papers.
http:// talk. workunlimited.co.uk/ westafrica /story/ 0,13764,1345739 ,00.html
'Just ignore him, he's basically an idiot with issues.'
Aww, that's cute. You have no counter argument so you resort to unoriginal name calling. You're 14 aren't you?
'It`s not the same walterpeck not even remotely the same! Dont try to justify the war in iraq by comparing it to a minor uprising because it , to use your words, doesn`t wash!'
Exactly how are they different mobs? Because the US is responsible for the war in iraq, and the US is always wrong, and france, that bastion of enlightened thought, is responsible for the ivory coast fiasco?
herzog, you've long since proven that you don't listen to debate unless it reinforces your own beliefs. You regularly fail to quote sources for your comments, and when others submit alternative arguments *with* recognised international sources, you do all you can to avoid or twist the issue. You're not interested in broadening your mind, only in repetition of dogma ad nauseam.
You ARE an idiot, and you DO have issues. I wish you all the best in resolving them.
'You regularly fail to quote sources for your comments, and when others submit alternative arguments *with* recognised international sources, you do all you can to avoid or twist the issue.'
Fail to quote a source like this:
http:// talk. workunlimited.co.uk/ westafrica /story/ 0,13764,1345739 ,00.html
Which I cited in a previous comment? Perhaps you should actually read what I write before commenting.
'You're not interested in broadening your mind, only in repetition of dogma ad nauseam.'
You have looked at my comment with all the perception of a fly studying the Bayeux tapestry from a centimetre away.
That last bit was a quote from a user that very much reminds me of you, perhaps you'll recognize it?
Never seen it before. Easy on the paranoia, fella.
Well done for finally managing to quote a source.
But if you'd actually read it, and cross-referenced it with other material, you'd know that the French have been in the Ivory Coast for some time now on a peacekeeping remit, and that the incident mentioned in that Guardian article was a response to an air attack on their peacekeeping force.
This response was approved by the UN Security Council.
The US-led invasion of the sovereign state of Iraq was *not* sanctioned by the UN Secirity Council.
So the answer is no, there is no hypocrisy in the recent French actions in the Ivory Coast.
source: Reuters, via http:// www.alertnet .org/thenews/ newsdesk/ N06381540. htm
'Well done for finally managing to quote a source.'
I quoted it earlier, you just chose to ignore it. This is easily verified by applying the scroll bar on the righthand side of the screen.
'But if you'd actually read it, and cross-referenced it with other material, you'd know that the French have been in the Ivory Coast for some time now on a peacekeeping remit, and that the incident mentioned in that Guardian article was a response to an air attack on their peacekeeping force.
This response was approved by the UN Security Council.'
Actually the response was not approved by the UN security council. It was a unilateral strike against a sovereign nation, whose guilt was never properly determined.
'The US-led invasion of the sovereign state of Iraq was *not* sanctioned by the UN Secirity Council.'
Much like the french assualt on the ivory coast. Good call.
The UN backed the attack AFTER it was carried out. Which means the french went in and attacked without permission. Very naughty of them. And given the fact that saddam broke the UN sanctions AND our ceasefire agreement we had ironclad legal reasons to go to war. The fact that the UN refused to recognize this reflects poorly on them, not the US.
The UN backed the attack AFTER it was carried out. Which means the french went in and attacked without permission. Very naughty of them. And given the fact that saddam broke the UN sanctions AND our ceasefire agreement we had ironclad legal reasons to go to war. The fact that the UN refused to recognize this reflects poorly on them, not the US.
Depends on what the rules of engagment were for the peacekeeping troops, you may find they are the same as they were for us in Bosnia in 1992. If they were fired upon they can fire back in defence.
The US went unilateral in Iraq against world and UN inspectors opinions, they used 9/11 as an excuse to attack 1st for WMD's then the excuse for being a terrorist state then to liberate it's people. It seems certain people in here tend to jump on that elitist wagon train!
by isay on Wed Nov 10, 04 3:27am
[+]
No, I wasn't being specific about your quoting of the source. I was referring to your atrocious record of giving unbiased background material, such as in your ridiculous ballot 39650.
And there WAS no French assault on the Ivory Coast. If you'd actually read both my comments & the news commentaries, you'd realise that the French had been in Ivory Coast on a peacekeeping remit since the peace agreement was signed in January 2003 to mark the (supposed) end of the civil war.
Tell you what... I'll print it again in capitals, just to make sure you understand it:
THE FRENCH DID NOT LAUNCH AN ASSAULT ON IVORY COAST, THEY HAD BEEN THERE FOR WELL OVER A YEAR ON A PEACEKEEPING REMIT AT THE INVITATION OF THE IVORIAN GOVERNMENT.
(source: Voice of America news, via http:// www.africaonline .com/site /Articles /1%2C3%2C54997 .jsp)
There. Let's see you try to twist that to suit your prejudices, you distasteful little man.
And please stop trying to justify your nation's invasion of Iraq. It received no international sanction at the time OR since - FACT - and far from there being 'ironclad legal reasons', the justifications for invasion remain questionable at best and criminal at worst, since the pretext for invasion was found to be wholly incorrect (i.e. no WMDs were found).
Now, refute what I've just said, point by point, or go and fuck yourself. I don't have time to waste on people such as yourself who only seek to reinforce their prejudices.
My previous comment was aimed at herzog, isay.
Oh so because they'd been there for a year they can do whatever they want. Well let's see, we've had peacekeeping forces in germany for decades. If we were to just start randomly killing german civilians that'd be ok because we were there for a while?
..so by your logic Herzog, if American troops did start killing people in Germany that could be compared to the U.S led invasion of Iraq as well. Riiight, I understand. Keep going Herzog.
WNC, the point here is hypocrisy. If france does the exact same thing they've accused us of doing, then they are hypocrites.
Let's look at that checklist again: unilateral action taken against a soveriegn nation without UN mandate: check.
Attacking a small nation that is of no direct threat to them: check.
Dubious economic ties, and insinuations of imperialism and greed: check.
Attacks which kill civilians unrelated to the fighting: check.
Acting without allies: check.
Is there anything else?
" It`s not the same walterpeck not even remotely the same! Dont try to justify the war in iraq by comparing it to a minor uprising because it , to use your words, doesn`t wash! "
I'm not the one trying to justify it, mobsie. France is.
" The US-led invasion of the sovereign state of Iraq was *not* sanctioned by the UN Secirity Council. "
Three words why it was not: OIL FOR FOOD. Being that France was involved in that fiasco, it's no surprise that the U.N. is belatedly backing up France in the Ivory Coast.
This is worse than talking to infants...
Are you listening? Good. Then I'll begin...
The French were fired upon. By the usual rules of engagement, they are entitled to *defend* their troops.
The French troops were there because the Ivorial government had requested that they - and other UN forces (including American troops, who are only looking after US citizens) - keep the peace in the wake of the treaty of January 2003 that (supposedly) ended the civil war.
So, let's recap. Firstly, the French - and other UN forces - were invited there by the legitimate government.
Secondly, they were fired upon by aircraft and suffered casualties, whereupon they responded by destroying the aircraft.
Thirdly, the UN Security Council immediately approved France's reaction, and quite right too.
Only an imbecile would compare the French reaction to an air attack on their legitimate peacekeeping troops with the US-led invasion of an oil-rich sovereign state on a pretext that has since been proven ludicrous.
And it doesn't matter why the US-led invasion of Iraq wasn't sanctioned by the UN, the fact remains that it WASN'T.
The French response to the air attack WAS, almost immediately.
You two boys should really go off and do some reading.
Or go fuck yourselves, I don't really care.
'The French were fired upon. By the usual rules of engagement, they are entitled to *defend* their troops.'
Oh so if their soldiers are fired upon it's perfectly acceptable to retaliate? Kinda like the dozens of times american airmen were fired upon by the iraqis? Or does that not count?
'The French troops were there because the Ivorial government had requested that they - and other UN forces (including American troops, who are only looking after US citizens) - keep the peace in the wake of the treaty of January 2003 that (supposedly) ended the civil war.'
Sounds like the government wants them gone. Of course that's just according to official government statements, but what would they know?
Frances economic ties to the ivory coast are fairly large and go back decades. And yet no cries of 'economic imperialism'? Odd, almost as if those protestors were somehow biased against the US.
PS: the fact that france was taking bribes to keep the US out of iraq is irrelevent? Because we need the UNs moral authority before acting, right? Think about that for a second. We don't have moral authority to act on our own because we were told not to by a corrupt regime taking money from our enemy, and this corrupt regime is supposed to give us approval? Huh? That can only make sense to a fanatic.
Oh so if their soldiers are fired upon it's perfectly acceptable to retaliate? Kinda like the dozens of times american airmen were fired upon by the iraqis? Or does that not count?
Of course any peacekeeping force has the right to defend themsleves if fired upon which includes Iraqi's against American servicemen, which is only what the French did when they were attacked, i beleive even a US serviceman died aswell in the attacks. Having said that you're rant is lame at best.
I am not a lover of France either given they some how leaked data about launching Exocet missiles to Argentina during the Falkland's war and even your government is bent, just like mine but some people just can't see it as they are just to over patriotic.
by isay on Thu Nov 11, 04 10:47am
[+]
Give up Herzog, its getting painful now.
Quite painful. All these posts and not one example of how france is morally superior to the US in regards to these two conflicts.
" ...US-led invasion of an oil-rich sovereign state on a pretext that has since been proven ludicrous. "
PROVEN ludicrous? Nope. It's only been DEEMED ludicrous by left-wing nuts like you.
" And it doesn't matter why the US-led invasion of Iraq wasn't sanctioned by the UN, the fact remains that it WASN'T.
The French response to the air attack WAS, almost immediately. "
Yes, it DOES matter. It matters because the reason the U.N. didn't back us up is because they were involved in a scandal with Saddam Hussein. That VERY MUCH matters. It proved the U.N. is corrupt. Besides, with that lousy comment of yours, you're advocating outsourcing our national defense to the corrupt U.N. Not surprising, seeing as how Kerry was willing to do the same.
" Of course any peacekeeping force has the right to defend themsleves if fired upon which includes Iraqi's against American servicemen... "
You've forgotten two very important things: We're not aiming for civilians, never were, and American servicemen have every right to defend themselves against insurgents and terrorists. Why do you automatically leave out the American soldier's right to defend himself?
You've forgotten two very important things: We're not aiming for civilians, never were, and American servicemen have every right to defend themselves against insurgents and terrorists. Why do you automatically leave out the American soldier's right to defend himself?
Did you not read i said any Peacekeeping force has the right to defend themselves, Any being the operative word meaning Americans aswell. I also said one US peacekeeper was killed along with about 9 other French so dont contradict yourself with Americans right to defend themselves.
Who said America was aiming to kill civilians they die anyway just a bye product of a needless war in Iraq, but still loads of terrorists are there now which were not before.
by isay on Thu Nov 11, 04 3:07pm
[+]
Oh and i'm sick of this everyone is corrupt stuff and the American government is not, stop viewing the world through a pin hole that way America might not be billy fucking no mates anymore.
by isay on Thu Nov 11, 04 3:11pm
[+]
They were taking bribes from saddam in order to veto any resolution that involved military action against iraq. It doesn't get any more corrupt than that.
Serious question: can you possibly be more corrupt than to take bribes from a homicidal maniac to prevent a war, thus screwing over one of your most useful and loyal (god knows why) allies? Is there anything worse than that?
Thats like the pot calling the kettle black.
What i would call worse is selling him WMD'S in the 1st place knowing he used them on his own people in the 80's then when he decides to go renegade the US accuses him of having WMD's and abuses his own people and has to be removed.
by isay on Thu Nov 11, 04 4:06pm
[+]
'We're not aiming for civilians, never were'??
Ha! Then you're fucking awful shots, and what little credibility your invasion ever had disappeared with the overt & sadistic homosexuality of your prison guards at Abu Ghraib.
So you're happy about the American soldier's right to defend himself are you, Peck? But it's hypocrisy when a French soldier does the same, eh? Riiiiight... I thought so, you are a fucking imbecile. Grow up.
Herzog: as I predicted, avoiding and twisting the issue.
Now, admit that those French soldiers were well within their rights to defend themselves, as sanctioned by the international community, and acknowledge that since the US-led invasion of Iraq DID NOT receive international support, your theory of French hypocrisy is wholly unfounded.
And while you're standing on your soapbox with the dunce hat on, you might want to try & give us irrefutable proof of these alleged bribes. And when you've finished all that - and not before, sonny - you can go fuck yourself.
France hypocritical, never!! I'm so shocked!!
France hypocritical, never!! I'm so shocked!!
Yes they are hypocrits just like all western governments, but in this case they had the rights to do what they did.
by isay on Fri Nov 12, 04 4:36am
[+]
DD: oh, so now the french soldiers are allowed to defend themselves because the international community supported them. You're changing your story. And for the record, they didn't bother to ask the 'international community' before striking, they simply acted on their own initiative.
Please be more consistent in the future.
No, no change of story. Anyone's entitled to defend themself, if fired upon. Usual rules of engagement, old chap. Finished fucking yourself already? You must have a miniscule libido.
PS you were instructed to acknowledge your stupidity, and also give irrefutable evidence of these bribe allegations before fucking yourself - please address this inconsistency.
First they're entitlted to defend themselves if fired upon, then they're entitled to defend themselves if the international community gives them permission to do so. Nope, no change of story there, are you channeling kerry by any chance? You know the person has to be dead for you to do that right?
But since you grudging concede the right of soldiers to launch overwhelming retaliation against an enemy if attacked then I'm sure you'd have no problem with the invasion of iraq, as our soldiers were repeatedly attacked prior to the invasion.
'PS you were instructed to acknowledge your stupidity, and also give irrefutable evidence of these bribe allegations before fucking yourself - please address this inconsistency.'
You really should look at your own posts objectively some time, they're about 90% insults and profanity. These are not the signs of a seasoned debater, no they're more the signs of a disgruntled teenager.
Oh here, knock yourself out.
http:// thescotsman.scotsman.com/ index.cfm?id= 1167592004
http:// www.cnsnews.com /ViewNation.asp?Page=% 5CNation%5Carchive% 5C200410%5CNAT20041007a. html
http:// www.nationalreview.com /miller/ miller200410120842. asp
Ten seconds. That's how long it took me to type in 'french, iraq, oil, bribery' into google and get these results. You really should look into these things.
I suppose now I should demand you acknowledge your own stupidity and ignorance?
I'll take that as yes.
Don't be ridiculous.
And since you appear to be hard of thinking, I'll repeat it again:
The French reaction to their troops being fired upon WAS legal and DID receive the support of the UN Security Council.
Your invasion of Iraq did not receive support from the international community.
Now concede those points or shut up.
'But since you grudging concede the right of soldiers to launch overwhelming retaliation against an enemy if attacked then I'm sure you'd have no problem with the invasion of iraq, as our soldiers were repeatedly attacked prior to the invasion.'
This is bullshit. I made no such statement abut overwhelming retaliation, and nor would I agree that the US was within its rights to launch an invasion of a sovereign state that had nothing to do with the Al Qaeda terrorist attacks.
And as far as oil-for-food is concerned, there was US involvement stretching back into the 1990s. The ISG states that names of US companies or citizens found on the secret Iraqi lists were left out of the report on grounds of the US Privacy Act.
French hypocrisy? You should look a little closer to home, sonny.
'The French reaction to their troops being fired upon WAS legal and DID receive the support of the UN Security Council.'
Afterwards. If the UN were to approve the invasion of iraq in 2008 would that make everything kosher in your eyes?
'Your invasion of Iraq did not receive support from the international community.
'Niether did frances invasion, but current standards. They had fewer allies going in than we did. Care to discuss 'international support' again?
'This is bullshit. I made no such statement abut overwhelming retaliation, and nor would I agree that the US was within its rights to launch an invasion of a sovereign state that had nothing to do with the Al Qaeda terrorist attacks.'
They didn't merely defend their troops, they wiped out the ivory coasts airforce on the presumption that they were behind those attacks, which has yet to be proven. Overwhelming retalition, for questionable motivations.
And the US and britain were the only nations enforcing and adhering to the oil for food program, everyone else was robbing it blind. That does give us moral superiority. Admit this or shut up.
The invasion of Iraq was a response to precisely what? Please, no suppositions or conjecture. Either provide the irrefutable truth or... well, go fuck yourself again. I'm sure you do so regularly anyway ;-)
The French did NOT invade Ivory Coast. They were invited there over a year ago - along with other UN forces - as a peacekeeping force.
The French WERE fired upon by the Ivory Coast Air Force when the Presidential forces broke an 18-month ceasefire with the rebels in the north of the country.
I won't repeat my sources again. I suggest you read them this time, perhaps then you won't embarrass yourself further with uninformed opinions.
If the US adhered strictly to the terms of the oil-for-food programme, why did the ISG state that names of US companies or citizens found on the secret Iraqi lists were left out of the report on grounds of the US Privacy Act?
Well?
herzog- Chirac is from the right-wing, and you expect him to be consistent? French nationalism makes their imperialism just and all others unjust. American nationalism makes their imperialism just and others unjust. Nationalism, unchecked therefore reveals the Great Hypocrisy, and is capable of rising in any country. I don't expect an American nationalist to like the nationalism of another country- nationalists never like the nationalism of other countries. What you dislike about French naitonalism is evident in your own country's ever increasing unchecked miltaristic nationalism. Flag waving extremism is the very thing that must be uprooted, thrown out and left behind by all countries including France.
There guilty of the same hypocrisy America is for not letting Iran develop a nuclear program while it arms China, a country which actually threatened to Nuke America.
by seon on Fri Aug 12, 05 6:55am
[+]
|
|
