Why is it okay for the French to oust a foreign President, but not us?

Loyalists in Ivory Coast Confront French

NewsMax.com Wires
Monday, Nov. 8, 2004

ABIDJAN, Ivory Coast � French armored vehicles took up positions near the home of Ivory Coast's president Monday, and thousands of his supporters marched on the site, fearing an attempt to oust him as France clamped down on violence in its former West African colony.

More than 500 people have been wounded and an unknown number killed in a weekend of unrest, a Red Cross official said. State TV on Sunday showed pictures of what it said were five loyalists killed by French forces trying to quell the violence.

Fifty armored vehicles moved in around the home of President Laurent Gbagbo in Ivory Coast's commercial capital, Abidjan, presidential spokesman Desire Tagro said.

Original Story:www.newsmax.com...

Does anyone else see a double standard with this? Wasn't it the French putting up the most resistance with the U.S. going over to Iraq to oust Saddam?



[edit on 9-11-2004 by pbauer]

Personally, I don't think its right for anyone to oust a foreign leader unless that leader is trying to take over other countries (as Hitler did in WW2 for example).

If such a leader is not trying to conqer other countries, but is nevertheless a genocidal maniac, it is acceptable for other countries to aid those rebelling against him, but the impetus against him should come from his own people.





[Edited on 9-11-2004 by Pisky]

Originally posted by Pisky
Personally, I don't think its right for anyone to oust a foreign leader unless that leader is trying to take over other countries (as Hitler did in WW2 for example).

If such a leader is not trying to conqer other countries, but is nevertheless a genocidal maniac, it is acceptable for other countries to aid those rebelling against him, but the impetus against him should come from his own people.





[Edited on 9-11-2004 by Pisky]

Dont forget that Bush is trying to conquer the world.

Very true, Drunk. Hence my earlier comments.

Well i hateto say it but the reason the French can oust a foriegn President is cos France had a few colonies i guess they still have some reespect in those respect places.

It would have been the same with Britain but the traitor Blair sold us down the river.

But Hong Kong still has strong ties with Britain, most Hong Kong people want to go but to British rule.

They would prefer it even more if that treacherous bastard was booted out.

Originally posted by pbauer

Does anyone else see a double standard with this? Wasn't it the French putting up the most resistance with the U.S. going over to Iraq to oust Saddam?

Not really. The French were in IC as part of a UN peacekeeping force. The UN negotiated a cease-fire. The French were monitoring the line of control. The government broke the agreement and bombed the rebels, killing nine French soldiers and an American aid worker and wounding 23 other French soldiers in a UN base. OOPS!

The French totalled the ICAF in retaliation and then put troops into Abidjan to protect foreign nationals, who include US citizens.

The French then went to UN to get an arms embargo placed on IC and a travel ban on certain IC leaders.

When people kill US soldiers the US just lets them walk?:shk:

The French Marine Para commanding the troops in IC went on IC state tv to deny charges that France wanted to oust Gbagbo.

Originally posted by pbauer

Does anyone else see a double standard with this? Wasn't it the French putting up the most resistance with the U.S. going over to Iraq to oust Saddam?

They aren't ousting him.
Even the Newsmax article doesn't say they're ousting him.

The French have said that they were securing a base to protect foreigners.

Washington Post
A French official denied surrounding Gbagbo's house in Abidjan, saying forces were securing a temporary base at a hotel a few hundred yards away to protect about 1,300 foreigners who had taken refuge at a French military base.

[edit on 9-11-2004 by AceOfBase]

No Blood For Shockolatte!!!

Well since everyone says the US is in it for the oil, I would have to accuse Chirac of trying to gain control of the shockolatte (cocoa) commodity...

The days of low cost M&M's just went down the tubes.......

Originally posted by JacKatMtn
No Blood For Shockolatte!!!

Well since everyone says the US is in it for the oil, I would have to accuse Chirac of trying to gain control of the shockolatte (cocoa) commodity...

The days of low cost M&M's just went down the tubes.......

Woo, go France then! I love chocolate!

But seriously,
About the earlier post about Bush trying to take over the world. He's not trying to take over anything. He secured Iraq, and gave it back to the Iraqi people. Now they're supposed to be holding elections in January! How is that conquering? His mission was to free them, not conquer them.

[Edited on 9-11-2004 by Herman]