Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.

Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Politics & GovernmentMilitary · 1 decade ago

Are the French hypocrites for telling the US to not invade Iraq when they had troops in the Ivory Coast?

Aren't the French such hypocrites to have questioned the US's integrity of their invasion of Iraq when they put troops in the Ivory Coast to try to help rebels fight against the government! Go ahead and keep thinking the French are the peaceful humanists they proclaim to be. They'll do business with Saddam Hussein, yet not Laurent Gbagbo.It sounds a bit like Vietnam if you ask me. The French could have prevented the whole Vietnam war if they weren't so stubbornly protective of a territory they'd inevitably lose. They should have been greatful the Americans saved them from the Nazis! They knew we wouldn't attack them being an ally directly after WWII. So they turned to the Soviets which is what led to us trying to clean up mess they created.

What gave the French any more right to intervene in Ivorian affairs than Americans in Iraq? Do you think it really gets to the French that the Ivorians don't even take them seriously? Now if the US wanted to enforce policy on this country, they'd listen. They know we have the most powerful military in the world and utilize it often! There wouldn't even be an incentive for us though.

Update:

Jorge - No, I was referring to what happened in the early-2000s following the end of the Ivorian civil war. I'm not against peace keeping troops being there (whether from France, the US, ect.).

Update 2:

Gotta have more explosions! - They shouldn't than. The French don't have what the British have in collective territories either. With the exception of some like Sierra Leone, most of the countries on the crowd are stable and non-violent. Still though, if they feel such an urge of responsibility, than why doesn't the standard of living ever improve for these people? The Europeans are better off just staying away.

Update 3:

Gotta have more explosions! - Like I said, I'm not against peace keeping. I'm saying it makes them look hypocritical to pick a side and than point the finger at the US and say ''Hey, you shouldn't be intervening in their affairs.'' As if we're not involved in industries like those EU countries are in various African countries? As if we haven't been militarily involved in these places since the beginning of the Cold War? As if there aren't terrorists in those countries that don't want to harm us? At some point those European countries shouldn't have gotten involved there. Yet now they can't take their nose out. It doesn't matter if it were a long time ago.

Update 4:

Iraq was only stable for who was in the favor of the Hussein regime. Why don't you tell the Kurds their lives were stably peaceful and see what they say. How are you going to tell me the intervention wasn't supposed by the UN, meanwhile most of the US's allies (arguably most countries in the world) send some sort of aid (even if temporarily)? The UN is a useless anti-Israeli organization.

Update 5:

Gotta have more explosions - We asked Saddam Hussein to cooperate. He wouldn't. WMDs weren't the only reason we went into Iraq. What in '03 would have given us the impression Iraq ever would attack US soil? It was the potential terrorists he allowed to harbor in his country. Granted there weren't as many as in other countries. Yet there were some. Like it or not, we've taken out a tyrant and replaced it with a Democracy. It may or may not last. But our mission was noble. You think us not knowing whether or not there were WMDs wasn't enough to go to war? Than why'd the rest of the world initially support us? And many still do even with low popularity from their citizenry. You know why? Because they believed the ''You are with us or against us'' rhetoric. Europe and most of the world is America's b*tch and they know that. The French stepped out of line. I actually respect the canolies that took. But I despise their hypocrisy.

Update 6:

That is because the Israelis have to deal with terrorists on their own turf. The freaking Palestinians elected a party Americans, the EU and Japanese classify as a terrorist organization. So I don't blame them to defend their own turf. It is true that the ISraeli's could be more cooperative though. The flotilla raids didn't really help their image. Nor is building into East Jerusalem. Like Americans though, as well as the Chinese (regarding Tibet and other territories), the Israels can and will do what they please. It is apart of the pleasure of having a powerful military. The Europeans tell all of us we are not entitled to this? Why? They did it for centuries. Now it is their turn to watch. While Americana were farming simple folk for centuries, the Brits were enslaving Africans, exploiting Indians and bossing around Boers. We're now here because of the British and represent their evolved values in a different story.

6 Answers

Relevance
  • Favorite Answer

    Simple - Ivory Coast was a French colony, and was in a state of lawlessness and full-blown Civil War by the time French (and UN) peacekeepers intervened.

    European countries still feel responsible for and try to improve the stability of their former colonies when they have gone errant. This isn't unusual - the British intervened in Sierra Leone, Belgium in the Congo, Portugal in Timor-Leste, Italy in Somalia - and those are just some examples, there are countless instances when former colonial powers have sent troops into their previous colonies.

    Your comparison to Iraq is nonsense - it is beyond apples and oranges. Iraq was never an American territory, was still stable prior to the invasion, was not in a state of major civil war, and the invasion was not supported by the UN (wheras France's intervention in the Ivory Coast is part of UNOCI - an international force supported by troops from 42 nations).

    ---

    The effectiveness of peacekeeping in former colonies is a debate for another day - but either way, being invited by a government to send peacekeepers in order to bring stability there is a far cry from completely invading a country, waging war on it and toppling the government.

    The whole ruckus about invading Iraq wasn't because it was intervention that may or may not have been our business - the issue was that not everyone believed Iraq then possessed WMDs, or that Iraq had links to Al-Qaeda. France in particular wanted the US to prove the WMD links before they would potentially get involved. And even today, the causes of invading have still yet to be proven - the terrorists only came to Iraq after the invasion, when they saw it as a new front to fight Americans on.

    ...and now, Iraq is stable for virtually nobody! There are so many oppressed peoples and factions across the world, so many more obvious dubious states bragging about WMDs, others which openly harbor terrorists, yet only Iraq was special enough.

    As a military ally, Israel is more useless than the UN ever was - they've never really had anyone's back but their own. Never sent troops to support allies (expect maybe the Suez Crisis, when they got something out of it), never taken part in peacekeeping, never had anyone's back but their own. When America was attacked in 2001, all of America's military allies assisted in the subsequent invasion of Afghanistan, France included. To date, all of NATO has pitched in over there, but Israel has still to send even a single staff officer.

    ---

    Iraq harbored some terrorists, but definitely not Al Qaeda.

    We'll assume the current system of government in Iraq is a Democracy - is it worth waging costly wars on countries for the sake of supposedly installing Democracies? There are countless other countries in the world led by dictators and tyrants, and more still pose a threat to us. Who are we to claim we invaded a country to bring Democracy, but still forsake countless others?

    Israel's got domestic defence issues of their own - but so what? So do many countries that have contributed forces to Afghanistan or peacekeeping missions across the world. Things are not dire enough in Israel that they can't spare two or three guys to serve in staff officer positions or train local security forces. To quote you, they are supposedly a "powerful military". Sure, odds are no one would want Israel in a coalition anyway - but even if Israel's problems quietened down, they're never going to pitch in and help.

    You may not realise it, but countries like France, Canada and Germany are America's best friends - they've proven they've got America's back in the event of an attack and will pay in lives if necessary, but they're not afraid to let you know when you're making a mistake.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Ghabo is not the elected president of Cote d'Ivoire. The U.N. oversaw the election which elected Ouattara. The U.N. has a peace-keeping force there. Is that what you mean by France supporting the rebels? The U.S. is considering sending troops, too.

    We already have a couple of annual exercises in west Africa to train them. We have had at least three exercises this year including one led by MARSOC and includes Special Forces which trains troops from 3 of the Ivory Coast's neighbors. So, the U.S. and the international community approves of what France is doing.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    No one takes the french seriously. They haven't won a war on their own since the days of the Roman Empire.

  • 1 decade ago

    Did you realize that the U.S. invasion of Iraq scotched a $6 billion dollar oil deal between France and Hussein?

    Boy were the frogs irked!

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Gotta have more explosions!, the guy above me has a point!

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    FRENCH: F$CK YOU!!

    British: F$CK YOU!!

    CANADIANS: F$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$CK YOU!!

    God & Allah: THEN BURN!!

    Parliament of FRANCE!!!!: NO!!!!!!!!

    FRENCH Soldiers: SOME one SAVED! SOME one SAVED! SOME one SAVED! SOME one SAVED! SOME one SAVED! SOME one SAVED! SOME one SAVED! SOME one SAVED! SOME one SAVED! SOME one SAVED! SOME one SAVED! MY life!

    UK Public: NO!! OUR! OUR! OUR! F$CKING GOVERNMENT! GOVERNMENT! GOVERNMENT! GOVERNMENT! GOVERNMENT!!

    Cockneys: OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!!

    French: OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!!

    Spanish: OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!!

    Australians: OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!!

    AMERICANS: OFF!! WITH!! THEIR!!! HEADS!!!!

    George Soros: THEN BURN!!!!!

    Canadians & Australians: NO!! AMERICANS are the ones that should be ASHAMED!!!!!!!!

    DECENT Americans: We are.

    British & French: Well you were SPUN.

    SPIES! SPIES! SPIES! p.64-65

    Well the FRENCH are f$cking RIGHT!

    Canadians: WE'RE not WITH you EITHER!!

    Australians: WHY THE F$CK are you PICKING ON the FRENCH!!

    Jesus & Mohammet: NOBODY was WITH you!

    Canadians: WHY THE F$CK are PICKING ON

    British: THE FRENCH!!

    Dead French: We had MORE SUPPORT than we REALIZED, didn't we?

    Jesus & Mohammet: You SURE did!

    They thought we didn't AGREE with them?

    ABC, BBC & CBC: There wasn't much COVERAGE.

    Jesus & Mohammet: You SHOULD f$cking be ASHAMED of YOURSELVES!!

    Dead Japanese Justices: Because the BRITISH and AUSTRALIAN PUBLICS

    British & Australians: were AGAINST you TOO!!!

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.