instead of *****ing about the French, thank them

[GePap]

Given our general demeanor towards the French in Indochina (were we gave them aid but also undermined them politically), Suez (were we basically demanded they and the Brits retreat) or Algeria, were we gave the French little and tepid support, even though they considered Ageria part of France (and in the end had to see about 1 million people with french citizenship leave their homes), the US is not the one to be speaking about Loyal allies. All those times we felt the French were wrong and were not afraid to confront them about it: I don;t see why the French, with Lybia or Iraq, should not feel if they think we are wrong, it is not their duty to "submarine us".

Interestingly enough, i believe DAVOUT was a conscript in Algeria.

[Pekka]

Well well don't get so excited, this is most likely French Foreign Legion operation. The article mentioned Ivory Coast, and that's where FFL and 2REP special forces are fighting and stabilizing the area from local rebels.
So, it's FFL that is in the region, and they shouldn't be bashed since they are true warriors and excellent soldiers.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Defiant
I am not going to take your word about the vetoes without backup proof and what they were about, you have been known just to throw crap out there.
Show me any link you have and I will look at it.

England is an allie, Tony Blair went balls out for us and I can only hope we can return the favor, soon.

here you go:

Published on Tuesday, March 11, 2003 by the Associated Press
US Often Uses Security Council Veto for Israel
by Deborah Hastings

UNITED NATIONS - France last cast a lone veto in 1976, over a resolution to recognize the tiny island of Mayotte as part of the newly independent state of Comoros.

For the United States, it was three months ago, over a resolution condemning violence in the Middle East, specifically the killing of U.N. employees by Israeli soldiers and the destruction of a U.N. warehouse filled with food for needy Palestinians.

The power to veto, held by an exclusive five-member club of the Security Council, allows the world's most powerful nations to shape international peace and security.

But in the crisis over Iraq, France says it will veto current war plans, even if the European nation must go it alone, and even with U.S. leaders breathing down the necks of tired and bickering council members.

On the 15-member council, France, the United States, China, Russia and Britain constitute the privileged and permanent members possessing veto power.

That power, diplomats say, can also provide a bully pulpit for rewarding friends and punishing enemies. In the United Nations' 58-year history, the Soviet Union and its successor state, the Russian Federation, have used the veto 117 times - most coming during Cold War decades.

The United States is second with 73. Since 1990, America has cast more Security Council vetoes than any country, many of them favoring Israel, a longtime ally.

The word "veto," however, never appears in the U.N. Charter. Instead, the issue is worded this way: "Decisions of the Security Council . . . shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members including the concurring votes of the permanent members."

Meaning, to get its resolution authorizing force against Iraq, the United States - and co-sponsors Britain and Spain - must get a minimum of nine "yes" votes from the Security Council and avoid a veto.

In the ever-changing nuances of daily diplomacy, it was not clear Monday whether the Bush administration had nine votes.

And in the often arcane rules governing the United Nations - there is a way to get around a veto.

The "uniting for peace" resolution, passed in 1950 to stop North Korean Communist troops from invading South Korea, allows the General Assembly to meet in emergency session and vote on a course of action if the Security Council is unable to establish peace and security.

Rarely used, the resolution was suggested Monday by former diplomats who spoke to journalists at the United Nations.

"During the Korean invasion, we were smart enough to note that a veto would probably come from the Soviet Union," said former American envoy William J. vanden Heuvel, explaining the genesis of the 1950 resolution.

Vanden Heuvel opposes war against Iraq and pronounced President Bush's recent statements about the "irrelevance" of the United Nations "demagoguery."

For those in the United Nations who refuse to support force, vanden Heuvel said, "We still have the option of going immediately to the General Assembly and putting it to a vote of the world."

France's 1976 veto concerned Mayotte, one of four islands in the Comoros archipelago off southeast Africa.

France colonized Mayotte in 1843 and by 1904 had annexed the remainder of the archipelago. In a 1974 referendum, 95 percent of the Comoros population voted for independence. The exception was Mayotte, which, with its Christian majority, voted against joining the other mainly Islamic islands in independence.

Copyright 2003, The Associated Press

an AP article found at http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0311-10.htm

game, set, match defiant...

[Defiant]

Not quite junior, why did we veto the resolution and did anybody else, more research has to be done. And I added this post to my response to you.

[Oerdin]

Originally posted by Colon
Liberia used to be a colony found to resettle freed slaves from the US.

Liberia was never officially an American colony but it was funded by a group of racist white guys who thought slavery should end and all the blacks should be sent back to Africa. Other then insuring that no European country took over Liberia the US government just sort of ignored them.

[Sava]

let the record show I posted my link before defiant edited his statement...

[Pekka]

So.. thank the brave and heroic free men of the world who have volunteered to fight for the legion. They pledge their loyalty not to the flag, but to the legion.

But hey, mercenaries are all baddies, right?

[Defiant]

I will concede that Save got his link out there first, I didn't see his while I was looking for, apparently, the same one.

[Sava]

thanks Defiant, you obviously have class (which is more than I can say about myself)

It's wrong of you, however, to attack France for opposing the war. They didn't buy the US's argument, and judging from the lies and misinformation, rightly so. And for every instance where France did business with Saddam, there are 10 times as many instances of US support of other brutal dictatorships across the world. And in the grand scheme of things, the US did more to help Saddam than France could ever do.

And you are correct about the US's vetos. They have been predominantly pro-Israel vetos. But as for sticking up for allies... I don't protect my friend if he's committed a crime. And some of those pro-Israel vetos have been to shelter war-crimes investigations of Israeli officials.

This pisses me off because the US is blatantly hypocritical. Israel's actions with regards to Palestinians is very similar to Yugoslavia's actions in Kosovo and Bosnia. But yet, NATO and the US bombs Yugoslavia while protecting Israel. Don't get me wrong, there were war crimes in Bosnia and Kosovo... and those responsible should face justice. But it didn't warrant the military action, or the massive waves of propoganda and genocide accusations... and it certainly doesn't excuse the US for protecting Israel. I have no doubt that some Israeli military officials have commited war crimes.

[Whaleboy]

Why, exactly, do you not like the French? Give me reason, not xenophobic, irrational rhetoric.

Its a beautiful country, with a beautiful culture, beautiful traditions, beautiful people, and most importantly, beautiful food. Give me French cuisine over Burger King anyday.

[Sava]

Originally posted by elijah
Why, exactly, do you not like the French? Give me reason, not xenophobic, irrational rhetoric.

[typical dumbass response]
I hate the french because the french suck
god bless america
remember 9-11
[/typical dumbass response]

99.9% of french haters don't have any reason to hate the french beyond what's spoon fed to them in the media

[Spiffor]

I completely agree with your latest post Sava.

[gunkulator]

Originally posted by Sava
It's wrong of you, however, to attack France for opposing the war. They didn't buy the US's argument, and judging from the lies and misinformation, rightly so.

You give them far too much credit. This was a business decision, plain and simple. The French had a lot to lose if Saddam left. They were getting rich off the current regime and didn't want to stop the gravy train.

And for every instance where France did business with Saddam, there are 10 times as many instances of US support of other brutal dictatorships across the world.

So that makes it OK then? "Gee we only have one nasty dictator so leave us alone." Post cold war realities policies have changed everyone's policitics. Dictators shouldn't be tolerated anymore.

And in the grand scheme of things, the US did more to help Saddam than France could ever do.

Not in the past 12 years. Saddam was a lesser of two evils for the US in the 70s and 80s and acted as a buffer to Iranian Fundamentalism. Not our proudest moment surely but that's all in the past. Saddam started as a local Iraqi alternative to the mullahs. Who would have guessed he would turn into a megalomaniac bent on genocide and invading his neighbors? And before you say it was easy to guess (20-20 hindsight), I'd like to hear what YOU would have done in the early 80s with the very real threat of the Iranian Revolution spreading across the ME.

[DinoDoc]

Why is the copycat thread still open?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by elijah
Why, exactly, do you not like the French? Give me reason, not xenophobic, irrational rhetoric.

The Gaulist tendency of thier foreign policy that seems to have been accepted by both the left and right of that country & thier idiotic language laws will do for starters.

[Spiffor]

How exactly are our language laws idiotic ?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Spiffor
How exactly are our language laws idiotic ?

It's a personal opinion. I could just as well have written repellent if it would make you feel better.

[Spiffor]

I wonder what you find repellent with a nation trying to defend its culture which is its unifying factor...

[Sava]

Originally posted by gunkulator
You give them far too much credit. This was a business decision, plain and simple. The French had a lot to lose if Saddam left. They were getting rich off the current regime and didn't want to stop the gravy train.

Certainly the millions that protested the war didn't care much about business interests. Leadership elements in France certainly opposed the war for different reasons, that doesn't give anti-french morons an all-purpose excuse for hating the entire French people

So that makes it OK then? "Gee we only have one nasty dictator so leave us alone." Post cold war realities policies have changed everyone's policitics. Dictators shouldn't be tolerated anymore.

I agree... but this still isn't the case. If the US is concerned about stopping brutal regimes, how come we aren't doing jacksh1t in Africa? And if this is about freedom and oppression, why is Saudi Arabia our "friend"?

Not in the past 12 years. Saddam was a lesser of two evils for the US in the 70s and 80s and acted as a buffer to Iranian Fundamentalism. Not our proudest moment surely but that's all in the past. Saddam started as a local Iraqi alternative to the mullahs. Who would have guessed he would turn into a megalomaniac bent on genocide and invading his neighbors? And before you say it was easy to guess (20-20 hindsight), I'd like to hear what YOU would have done in the early 80s with the very real threat of the Iranian Revolution spreading across the ME.

circular logic... we need to get Saddam because he supports terrorist elements, but we helped Saddam in order to fight terrorist elements

thier idiotic language laws will do for starters

What business is it of yours what language laws they have. You don't live there. And I find it ironic that you are complaining about France's local laws, considering you live in a State where racism was institutionalized and legal less than half a century ago.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Spiffor
I wonder what you find repellent with a nation trying to defend its culture which is its unifying factor...

If the culture is so important to the people, why do they need laws to "save" it from the horrible influence of the outside world?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Sava
What business is it of yours what language laws they have. You don't live there.

Does this mean that there can be no more threads about the US made by Europeans?

[Sava]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
If the culture is so important to the people, why do they need laws to "save" it from the horrible influence of the outside world?

They are a democracy, they can make whatever silly laws they want.

[Sava]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Does this mean that there can be no more threads about the US made by Europeans?

ahhh that's nice, you're comparing a language law to war...

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Sava
They are a democracy, they can make whatever silly laws they want.

So you agree with me that they are stupid. Excellent.

[SlowwHand]

I thought you liked personal liberties, Sava.

[Sava]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
I thought you liked personal liberties, Sava.

it's their country, they can make whatever language laws they want... that goes for the US to. If the US wants to make English the official language, which it isn't, but it should be; the democratic government should be able to. I'm a social libertarian of sorts, Slowwy, not a wacko like Floyd.

DD: yes, I agree their laws on language are silly, but I am not about to attack them because of it. It's their country, they can do what they want.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
If the culture is so important to the people, why do they need laws to "save" it from the horrible influence of the outside world?

The culture is extremely important to the nation, but the nation fails to make it important to the (young) people. Henceforth it has to protect it.

Besides, these laws have been extremely efficient, as they are the direct cause of the renewed French music. French music has never been as good as today, simply because broadcasters have no other choice than to give it a go, and to notice it is quality and profitable

Indeed, until the language laws, nobody in the music industry would have thought French music would sell or would be good. Once again, the market's conservatism was badly flawed and had to be corrected

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Spiffor
The culture is extremely important to the nation, but the nation fails to make it important to the (young) people. Henceforth it has to protect it.

Why go with the ham fisted approach in an attempt to correct a situation they have created themselves when you mentioned yourself a more equitable approach that could have been taken.

[Dr Kellogg]

Who cares about the French language laws? It is such a beautiful country! And the French cuisine.. mmm delicious

[Imran Siddiqui]

yes, I agree their laws on language are silly, but I am not about to attack them because of it. It's their country, they can do what they want.

Now only if some Europeans can accept this and not try to tell us what our country should do .