SY said:
Let's see. First, its cocoa not bananas. Second, they were invited by the government and for the most part attempted to play the role of honest broker between the northern based rebels and the government. Third, they are in the process of being replaced by UNOCI. And last of all, the idea that France, with a mere 4000 troops attempted to invade, nevermind occupy, a country with 3/4 the landmass and 2/3 the population of Iraq, is well beyond ridiculous.
SY said:
Hold on there bald eagle, I wouldn't go anywhere near that one if I were you.
ray.
How many times has THAT excuse been used? (see: Vietnam)
No blood for bananas!
No blood for cocoa!
It's sad when a country is even worse militarily than the French.
rfbrw said:
so it is OK to fight for Starbucks but not for freedom and democracy? or Hilburton for that matter.
rfbrw said:
Wow! That's a good and just reason to get into a war, 🙂
rfbrw said:
what an insult to the people of Ivory coast. You don't think they are capble of controlling their own destiny?
rfbrw said:
that's exactly what I thought about french. What were they thinking?
who is fighting for freedom???
i tell you: the iraqis, the palestinians.
To them will happen the same like with the indians in the USA - there will be freedom and this special kind of "democracy", and plenty of gas stations and mc donalds - but about noone of them alive when you get ready the job.
This reminds me of something: within the last years I met many US students that came here through a student exchange program. Many were saying that altho the US was rated as the democracy no 1 in the whole world, they feel that germany and other countries in europe are more democratic, and they felt bettter here;till said:
they also gave some examples regarding mainly the so called patriotic act, the society(you may get here in any club you want, while in the us the club structure is very strict, for many a VIP card is required etc.; other points included the communities and how the high society doesn't give a scheit about the others etc.)
another point(not really doing with democracy) included the consumer society and how the americanas were not that interested about quality, but much more about price, getting it really cheap etc.(the same feedback but much more amplified comes from the europeans that visit the states)
too much to talk about, really. the ignorants will not care anyway.
Compare a crysler and a toyota car, and you know everything about how important quality is for the amerikan enigeers who do contruction for cars. Good example for selling worse stuff for more money with great sucess is caterpilar. The most important part is the chain is marketing, and truth is the lie the marketing tells - same for business as for politics over there.
They should teach more mark twain and less warped bible wisdom in the US.
one of the big mistakes of the "amerikanicized" managment of Merecedes.
those foe the amerikans and canadians. yes.
an i Steyer Daimler Puch.
roibm said:
But I guess that's too much to ask for this crowd.
till said:
that crown actually goes to the Europeans. The lastest JD Power's survey had the Europeans last in quality. There was an article in the USAToday about luxury cars and they found out that buyers of European luxury cars are less likely to buy another European luxury car and more of them are switching to the Japanese brands.
Having owned two European cars, I am in general agreement with the above survey.
roibm said:
So, democracy means being able to get into any club you want to? I guess Amnesty International should start issuing a "Velvet Rope Report".
Acutally, I had the same impression when I first moved to Europe. It took me a couple years to realize I was wrong. Society there seemed more democratic to me at first because I assumed that Europeans enjoyed all the same freedoms Americans do, plus the extra things I was noticing. That turned out to be false: Europe isn't any more or less free than the US, just slightly different. I also didn't recognize the status markers that distinguished the elite from the ordinary peasants, so I thought European society was more egalitarian. I was wrong on that count too.
Don't ask newly arrived students for a fair comparison of US and European society, or for that matter people who have lived there for 20+ years. They either don't know enough about Europe yet, or they've forgotten what the US is really like.
Millwood, please don't quote me as saying something I did *NOT* say.
Thank you.
This for example:
Thank you.
This for example:
Hey, I did not ask them, they were saying it.Rob M said:
Anyway, it is strange to me, as they are still americans.
As about what Mill said, that they are liberals or whatever, it is irrelevant. Or should we judge people on their skin colour as well? Sooner or later someone is going to pop with "the blacks/yellows are liberals"
SY & Millwood, the point I was trying to make that you seem to miss is that there was never any invasion attempted or otherwise. It was always a peace-keeping mission that started with about 1500 troops a number that rose to around 4000 at the time of handing over to the UN. They were invited to hold the line and act as a neutral third party. They did not lecture the locals on what kind of government they can or cannot have, they did not use gunships in crowded town centres and they certainly weren't there to "kill or capture" anyone who said boo to a goose.
They simply sought to stablise the country and get both sides to talking and the UN mission along with the French and ECOWAS troops have actually stabilised things which is more than one could say for Iraq.
The war in so far as it was one was a rebellion that developed into a possible seccession and given the racial overtones a third party made perfect sense. And as to why the French? It used to be their colony and they have a base there and the role they play is no different to that played by the UK in Sierra Leone.
ray.
They simply sought to stablise the country and get both sides to talking and the UN mission along with the French and ECOWAS troops have actually stabilised things which is more than one could say for Iraq.
The war in so far as it was one was a rebellion that developed into a possible seccession and given the racial overtones a third party made perfect sense. And as to why the French? It used to be their colony and they have a base there and the role they play is no different to that played by the UK in Sierra Leone.
ray.
In other words, they were occupiers and Cote d'Ivoire and its people remain under the French jackboot.
No blood for bananas! No blood for cocoa!
Rob M said:
Europe tends to the worker's paradise (nothing wrong with that, BTW). You work 35 hours a week, minimum 5-wk paid vacation, cannot get fired at will (over 9 fires a year the employer has to have a social plan that costs about 15-25K euros a pop), etc. The french way is a lovely way.
No wonder employers there are so afraid of hiring, 🙂
roibm said:
Do the french also throw bombs on cities, like the us army still does in iraq, even if "mission accomplished " ?
My impression on whats goind on in iraq goes much more to "Vernichtungkrieg" than what the french do.
My impression on whats goind on in iraq goes much more to "Vernichtungkrieg" than what the french do.
till said:
not only didn't they throw bombs on cities, they didn't even fire at the Germans when they marched into France.
If not for all the bobms the US threw in WW2, we would have a wonderful peace in Europe.
Under the Germans, of course.
🙂
millie, you are absolutely not on topic with this as an response. But if you want i will go to the same conversation level as you: <millielogic>amerikans are criminal baby killers, we know because they killed babys in Vietnam. Reason enough to know invasion in iraq is a crime, as they did crime long before also.</millielogic>
- Status
- Not open for further replies.