• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

No Blood for Chocolate!

a_majoor

Army.ca Legend
Inactive
Reaction score
33
Points
560
Excerpts from Lorne Gunter's National Post colum:
    No blood for chocolate! No blood for chocolate! No blood for chocolate!

    Where are the mass protests in the streets of the world's capitals against
    France's military intervention in the Ivory Coast?

    This month, French peacekeepers in the former French colony launched a pre-emptive assault against the Ivorian air force. They also interferred with the internal politics of the troubled nation and sought regime change < . . . > They acted without
    authorization by the United Nations Security Council. They violated both the UN
    Charter and the terms of the peacekeeping resolution that established their specific mission in the West African nation. The Security Council did sanction their attacks after the fact. Nonetheless, the French acted unilaterally, and only sought and received a UN cover story later. There wasn't even a coalition of the willing. No Brits, Aussies, Poles or Dutch to help out; just French troops, jets, helicopters and armoured personnel carriers.

    While the French have achieved their military goals quickly and easily, they have failed to stop the destruction of much of the I.C.'s infrastructure. They have been powerless to end a Muslim insurgency that controls half of Ivory Coast's territory. They have stood by while schools and libraries were torched, failed to prevent widespread looting and have even fired on civilian mobs twice, killing as many as 60 Ivorians. And they have hardly been welcomed as liberators by the locals. < . . . > Tens of thousands of immigrant Ivorians have been turned into refugees, fleeing into neighbouring Liberia, Guinea, Burkina Faso and Ghana. Who knows, perhaps we'll also soon learn that some fabulous national museum containing world heritage treasures -- yet a museum no one in the West, outside of a handful of archaeologists, had heard ever of -- was picked clean thanks to French neglect.

    All of this was done in the name of protecting French commercial interests in the IC's lucrative cocoa trade (and timber, mines and oil). So where are the campus radicals, the smug Western intellectuals and the preening pundits with their accusations of blood for chocolate? Where is their accusation that the whole thing has just been a giant conspiracy to ensure French President Jacques Chirac's buddies in the chocolate industry have all the cheap cocoa butter they want? There has been no media talk of quagmire, even though the French have been involved in the I.C.'s civil war for nearly three years. The French military intervention proceeded for the first 17 months without any UN authorization whatever. And the Chirac government has repeatedly escalated its troop commitment from 500 in 2002, to 2,500 in 2003, to 4,000 earlier this year, to 5,000 today. And the situation only worsens.

    Where is the outrage at the inability of French forces to secure instantly and perfectly every block of the Ivory Coast's teeming cities? Where are the BBC interviews with Secretary-General Kofi Annan declaring the French adventure "illegal," as he did concerning the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq? Where are the letters from Annan to Chirac entreating him not to quell the insurgency< . . . > for fear of provoking worse from the locals, the way he cautioned the Americans against pacifying Falluja. < . . . > The French have done exactly what they should have in Ivory Coast. < . . .> What's galling is the way the French have done it all without any deference to the multilateral consensus-building they so smugly demanded of the Americans and British last year < . . .> Doubly galling is the silence -- even complicity -- of the UN and the international community, which last year so sanctimoniously and vocally obstructed the invasion of Iraq.

    No other nation has inserted itself militarily into African affairs in the post-colonial period more than France -- nearly two dozen times -- including on behalf of the murderous Jean-Bedel Bokassa, who proclaimed himself emperor of the Central African Republic, and in support of the Hutu government of Rwanda, whose supporters butchered half a million or more Tutsis in 1994. The truth is, international opposition to the Iraq war (including French opposition) was prompted as much by bitter anti-Americanism and irrational hatred of George W. Bush as it was by any true concern for peace or multilateralism. Will Michael Moore < . . . > produce a "documentary" on the scandal of French unilateralism and neo-colonialism? Of course not. When it is countries and leaders they favour committing the offences, the international left gives them a free pass.

    Multilateralism? No, merci.

Well, isn't that interesting. Old fashioned imperialism is alive and well, and OK according to the studied silence from the left. Just don't go into a nation and intervene on behalf of the oppressed masses...wait a minute, isn't the Left about the oppressed masses?
 
a_majoor said:
Excerpts from Lorne Gunter's National Post colum:
    No blood for chocolate! No blood for chocolate! No blood for chocolate!

    Where are the mass protests in the streets of the world's capitals against
    France's military intervention in the Ivory Coast?

    This month, French peacekeepers in the former French colony launched a pre-emptive assault against the Ivorian air force. They also interferred with the internal politics of the troubled nation and sought regime change < . . . > They acted without
    authorization by the United Nations Security Council. They violated both the UN
    Charter and the terms of the peacekeeping resolution that established their specific mission in the West African nation. The Security Council did sanction their attacks after the fact. Nonetheless, the French acted unilaterally, and only sought and received a UN cover story later. There wasn't even a coalition of the willing. No Brits, Aussies, Poles or Dutch to help out; just French troops, jets, helicopters and armoured personnel carriers.

    While the French have achieved their military goals quickly and easily, they have failed to stop the destruction of much of the I.C.'s infrastructure. They have been powerless to end a Muslim insurgency that controls half of Ivory Coast's territory. They have stood by while schools and libraries were torched, failed to prevent widespread looting and have even fired on civilian mobs twice, killing as many as 60 Ivorians. And they have hardly been welcomed as liberators by the locals. < . . . > Tens of thousands of immigrant Ivorians have been turned into refugees, fleeing into neighbouring Liberia, Guinea, Burkina Faso and Ghana. Who knows, perhaps we'll also soon learn that some fabulous national museum containing world heritage treasures -- yet a museum no one in the West, outside of a handful of archaeologists, had heard ever of -- was picked clean thanks to French neglect.

    All of this was done in the name of protecting French commercial interests in the IC's lucrative cocoa trade (and timber, mines and oil). So where are the campus radicals, the smug Western intellectuals and the preening pundits with their accusations of blood for chocolate? Where is their accusation that the whole thing has just been a giant conspiracy to ensure French President Jacques Chirac's buddies in the chocolate industry have all the cheap cocoa butter they want? There has been no media talk of quagmire, even though the French have been involved in the I.C.'s civil war for nearly three years. The French military intervention proceeded for the first 17 months without any UN authorization whatever. And the Chirac government has repeatedly escalated its troop commitment from 500 in 2002, to 2,500 in 2003, to 4,000 earlier this year, to 5,000 today. And the situation only worsens.

    Where is the outrage at the inability of French forces to secure instantly and perfectly every block of the Ivory Coast's teeming cities? Where are the BBC interviews with Secretary-General Kofi Annan declaring the French adventure "illegal," as he did concerning the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq? Where are the letters from Annan to Chirac entreating him not to quell the insurgency< . . . > for fear of provoking worse from the locals, the way he cautioned the Americans against pacifying Falluja. < . . . > The French have done exactly what they should have in Ivory Coast. < . . .> What's galling is the way the French have done it all without any deference to the multilateral consensus-building they so smugly demanded of the Americans and British last year < . . .> Doubly galling is the silence -- even complicity -- of the UN and the international community, which last year so sanctimoniously and vocally obstructed the invasion of Iraq.

    No other nation has inserted itself militarily into African affairs in the post-colonial period more than France -- nearly two dozen times -- including on behalf of the murderous Jean-Bedel Bokassa, who proclaimed himself emperor of the Central African Republic, and in support of the Hutu government of Rwanda, whose supporters butchered half a million or more Tutsis in 1994. The truth is, international opposition to the Iraq war (including French opposition) was prompted as much by bitter anti-Americanism and irrational hatred of George W. Bush as it was by any true concern for peace or multilateralism. Will Michael Moore < . . . > produce a "documentary" on the scandal of French unilateralism and neo-colonialism? Of course not. When it is countries and leaders they favour committing the offences, the international left gives them a free pass.

    Multilateralism? No, merci.

Well, isn't that interesting. Old fashioned imperialism is alive and well, and OK according to the studied silence from the left. Just don't go into a nation and intervene on behalf of the oppressed masses...wait a minute, isn't the Left about the oppressed masses?

DELICIOUS!!!! Thank you- you made my day. This is being forwarded to my fmaily in Texas.....
 
Perfect. Oh yes, I will be refering our resident "Bush" haters to this thread to ask if they plan on making the anti-Chirac posters at the same time. :-X
 
a_majoor said:
Excerpts from Lorne Gunter's National Post colum:
    No blood for chocolate! No blood for chocolate! No blood for chocolate!

    Where are the mass protests in the streets of the world's capitals against
    France's military intervention in the Ivory Coast?

    This month, French peacekeepers in the former French colony launched a pre-emptive assault against the Ivorian air force. They also interferred with the internal politics of the troubled nation and sought regime change < . . . > They acted without
    authorization by the United Nations Security Council. They violated both the UN
    Charter and the terms of the peacekeeping resolution that established their specific mission in the West African nation. The Security Council did sanction their attacks after the fact. Nonetheless, the French acted unilaterally, and only sought and received a UN cover story later. There wasn't even a coalition of the willing. No Brits, Aussies, Poles or Dutch to help out; just French troops, jets, helicopters and armoured personnel carriers.

    While the French have achieved their military goals quickly and easily, they have failed to stop the destruction of much of the I.C.'s infrastructure. They have been powerless to end a Muslim insurgency that controls half of Ivory Coast's territory. They have stood by while schools and libraries were torched, failed to prevent widespread looting and have even fired on civilian mobs twice, killing as many as 60 Ivorians. And they have hardly been welcomed as liberators by the locals. < . . . > Tens of thousands of immigrant Ivorians have been turned into refugees, fleeing into neighbouring Liberia, Guinea, Burkina Faso and Ghana. Who knows, perhaps we'll also soon learn that some fabulous national museum containing world heritage treasures -- yet a museum no one in the West, outside of a handful of archaeologists, had heard ever of -- was picked clean thanks to French neglect.

    All of this was done in the name of protecting French commercial interests in the IC's lucrative cocoa trade (and timber, mines and oil). So where are the campus radicals, the smug Western intellectuals and the preening pundits with their accusations of blood for chocolate? Where is their accusation that the whole thing has just been a giant conspiracy to ensure French President Jacques Chirac's buddies in the chocolate industry have all the cheap cocoa butter they want? There has been no media talk of quagmire, even though the French have been involved in the I.C.'s civil war for nearly three years. The French military intervention proceeded for the first 17 months without any UN authorization whatever. And the Chirac government has repeatedly escalated its troop commitment from 500 in 2002, to 2,500 in 2003, to 4,000 earlier this year, to 5,000 today. And the situation only worsens.

    Where is the outrage at the inability of French forces to secure instantly and perfectly every block of the Ivory Coast's teeming cities? Where are the BBC interviews with Secretary-General Kofi Annan declaring the French adventure "illegal," as he did concerning the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq? Where are the letters from Annan to Chirac entreating him not to quell the insurgency< . . . > for fear of provoking worse from the locals, the way he cautioned the Americans against pacifying Falluja. < . . . > The French have done exactly what they should have in Ivory Coast. < . . .> What's galling is the way the French have done it all without any deference to the multilateral consensus-building they so smugly demanded of the Americans and British last year < . . .> Doubly galling is the silence -- even complicity -- of the UN and the international community, which last year so sanctimoniously and vocally obstructed the invasion of Iraq.

    No other nation has inserted itself militarily into African affairs in the post-colonial period more than France -- nearly two dozen times -- including on behalf of the murderous Jean-Bedel Bokassa, who proclaimed himself emperor of the Central African Republic, and in support of the Hutu government of Rwanda, whose supporters butchered half a million or more Tutsis in 1994. The truth is, international opposition to the Iraq war (including French opposition) was prompted as much by bitter anti-Americanism and irrational hatred of George W. Bush as it was by any true concern for peace or multilateralism. Will Michael Moore < . . . > produce a "documentary" on the scandal of French unilateralism and neo-colonialism? Of course not. When it is countries and leaders they favour committing the offences, the international left gives them a free pass.

    Multilateralism? No, merci.

Well, isn't that interesting. Old fashioned imperialism is alive and well, and OK according to the studied silence from the left. Just don't go into a nation and intervene on behalf of the oppressed masses...wait a minute, isn't the Left about the oppressed masses?

Since when did preemptive strikes happen after you've been attacked  :-\
 
I'm sorry, are you refering to that terrible day terrorists from the Ivory Coast flew hijacked Air France jets into the heart of Paris?
 
He's refering to the day when Ivory Coast air force bomb a french position and killed nine (8?) french soldiers.
 
Here:
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L06620814.htm
 
Oh, merci, merci! You made my day with that article a_majoor. That was sweet! - pun intended.

cheers!
 
*Shakes his fist at you like an agry average Joe softie anti-americanismish Canadian... Hard!*

Damn you a_majoor, that post kicked damn ass! That really puts a foot in my mouth, honestly. I think all you non-anti-american people are starting to get to me... Crap, never thought that would happen. Suppose that's what happens when one reviews the actual FACTS, and one keeps an OPEN mind, and one uses deductive thinking (more logical)....

This really blows my mind, and makes sense!  :o  I'll really be doing some hard thinking over the next while indeed...

My hats off to you a_majoor!  :salute:

Joe
The "Sitting on the Fence not so sure now Canadian"... What kinda Canadian is that Canadian? The Average Canadian-Canadian I assume... ???
;)
::)
 
Easy there big guy. The main reason for the post was to point out the outstanding hypocrisy of the Left, who can look at similar actions and come up with totally opposite conclusions simply based on who the actors are.

There is lots to disagree with the United States about, and even in their domestic policies there are lots of legitimate areas of disagreement. The Democrats could have taken all the marbles by asking tough questions about the administrations domestic spending, immigration policies, how exactly the transition from the "Entitlement society" to the "Ownership society" is going to take place, while offering their own detailed answers to these same questions ("I've got a plan", and holding a summit are not acceptable answers).

Instead, the reaction to the Administration's actions was way over the top, and the average American probably wondered if a soft Texas twang wasn't prefferable to some shrieking harridan...The Bush team was "on message", and their message resonated with far more voters. The voters who were most vocal against the Bush administration are very much the same people who have been so silent about events such as the French mission to the Cote d'Ivory.
 
I always love reading posts about topics which usually remain hidden from common view or are normally overlooked by the average person.  Though I certainly do not side with the French on this (assuming that all that was stated in the report is in fact true, which I have no reason to believe the contrary), I do not think that this should in anyway change a person's standpoint on the Iraq war.  Simply because the French commited the actions that they were opposing (indeed that makes them hypocrites) and that they received little to no public opposition to it does not redeem anything the US did or didn't do.  I oppose many things about iraq but i also support many of the decision made by the coalition forces there.  The simple fact that another nation commits similar acts under similar conditions and receives no "slap on the hand" for it does not change what may have been wrong with coalition actions.  Do two wrongs make a right? Does one wrong opposed and one wrong not opposed redeem the first part?  Frankly I think not.  Both parties should have been treated with equal publicity, both parties should have suffered through he same public scrutiny and opposition.  My problem with this article is that it seems to scream "Well they did and weren't opposed, why are we getting in such trouble!!!????"  It does however have it's merit and I thank you for bringing it to the attention of all the readers of this website, it however, in my opinion does not pose merit as a leg for pro-americans to stand on...
 
sorry I should not have said pro americans, since the decision to go to war has been supported by other nations, pro-coalition is perhaps a wiser and more just choice.

cheers
 
John Doe said:
I always love reading posts about topics which usually remain hidden from common view or are normally overlooked by the average person.   Though I certainly do not side with the French on this (assuming that all that was stated in the report is in fact true, which I have no reason to believe the contrary), I do not think that this should in anyway change a person's standpoint on the Iraq war.   Simply because the French commited the actions that they were opposing (indeed that makes them hypocrites) and that they received little to no public opposition to it does not redeem anything the US did or didn't do.   I oppose many things about iraq but i also support many of the decision made by the coalition forces there.   The simple fact that another nation commits similar acts under similar conditions and receives no "slap on the hand" for it does not change what may have been wrong with coalition actions.   Do two wrongs make a right? Does one wrong opposed and one wrong not opposed redeem the first part?   Frankly I think not.   Both parties should have been treated with equal publicity, both parties should have suffered through he same public scrutiny and opposition.   My problem with this article is that it seems to scream "Well they did and weren't opposed, why are we getting in such trouble!!!????"   It does however have it's merit and I thank you for bringing it to the attention of all the readers of this website, it however, in my opinion does not pose merit as a leg for pro-americans to stand on...

Maybe pro-Iraq war would make you sound more objective. I dont think it screams anything other than what should be screamed- why a nation that "vetoed" UN support- would go ahead an engage in the same actions it called wrong. And more so why it has gone apparently unnoticed by the rest of the world. You are correct in saying it doesnt make the iraq war right or wrong but I dont think thats what is trying to be conveyed.....
 
R031button said:
Well, isn't that interesting. Old fashioned imperialism is alive and well, and OK according to the studied silence from the left. Just don't go into a nation and intervene on behalf of the oppressed masses...wait a minute, isn't the Left about the oppressed masses?

Since when did preemptive strikes happen after you've been attacked   :-\

Thats exactly what I was wondering too....
 
Those french soldiers were injured when the ivory coast government bomber rebel cities....they were collateral damage. The French then retaliated and destroyed the Ivorian Air Force.....they werent directly attacked. But they went ahead and destroyed the air force anyways...

Boy you Anti-USA guys wont look at anything objectively.....unless you are tryoing to say something else?
 
Mister White,
  After rereading the article, perhaps you are right, with your perspective in mind i can definitely see where you're come from,  I think that my post still holds it's validity as you pointed out in saying that it doesn't justify anyone's actions but perhaps i did misinterpret the authors statements.  I agree with you one hundred percent that it is absurd that the French did and continue to persue a course that they themselves condemned.  It is equally upsetting that the world does not open it's eye to the existing situation and "raise a little hell" if you will.  It is too bad how people tend to follow the bandwagon (anti-US is very popular at the moment and so people tend to follow along with that trend) and what is worse is that the global media and that global powers seem to feed this follower attitude by "ignoring" what seems to be "unimportant".  That is the way of the world I suppose, as unfortunate as that may be.

Cheers,
 
HA I wasnt trying to get "at you". For the most part I agreed. Its alright to condemn policy you dont agree with- I just wish that people could be more like you and willing to paint everyone equally. Thats the important stuff.
 
Let me got on my soap box for a second....


This left side, Right side bullshit is just that, bullshit.

The left are a bunch of screaming hippies, the right are a bunch of heartless monkeys. We all know it.
This nonsense two dimensional approach to politics and humanity is what makes us (yes) a bunch of monkeys.

Rise above guys (oh its a tall soap box by the why)
You dont like George Bush's policies, fine you're not inherently left wing, you're just not a fan of George Bush.
You like Stephen Harper, fine, you're not a homophobe righty.

Lets evolve our political opinions opinions past this to a point where we can disagree with someone without pointing them in a political direction disrecidting their entire viewpoint.

Anyhow folks thats it, my new years resolution.
 
My big beef with the "anti-war" crowd concerns their "reasoning" for opposing the war. The French in the Cote d'Ivory are doing everything the Americans are accused of in Iraq, with the added bonus of not even performing nation building or attempting to install and nurture a consensual government in the area.

You may not agree with the strategic objectives of the US (Iraq as a major battleground in WW IV), or the operational plan to achieve victory, but it is costing the US a huge amount of blood and treasure. The French, on the other hand, are simply applying old fashioned Imperialism, and should be roundly condemned on that basis alone (their backstabbing in the UN and complicity in the "Oil for Food" scandal can be considered separately).
 
Back
Top