A funny thing happened on the way to work today,

[Cyber Wolf]

Originally Posted by Elspode

I don't know about anyone else, but shouldn't the US lodge a formal protest over all that French meddling in the Ivory Coast? It only seems fair.

By formal protest, do you mean an offical yet ineffective statement saying "I don't like what you're doing over there." or do you mean an offical yet statement authorizing the invasion of the Ivory Coast to Free The People from their Oppressive French Regime?

Originally Posted by garnet

Cyber Wolf is also very cool...

Awww, now I feel all warm and fuzzy inside

[jaguar]

Elspode, they're there are the head of a sanctioned UN mission. Are you suggesting the US lodge a formal potest to the UN over a UN mission it supported?

On 29 February 2004 the UN Security Council has agreed to send a peacekeeping force of more than 6,000 troops to Cote d'Ivoire to supervise the disarmament of rebel forces and presidential elections due in October 2005. The council voted unanimously in favour of creating the new peacekeeping force on Friday after the United States dropped its earlier opposition to the proposal. The UN Operation in Cote d’Ivoire (UNOCI) formally came into existence on April 4 for an initial period of 12 months. It replaced the existing UN mission in Cote d’Ivoire, known by its French acronym MINUCI, which included a handful of military liaison officers.

France made clear that its 4,000 troops in Cote d’Ivoire would not become part of the UN peacekeeping force, numbering itself 6,000 UN troops.

[OnyxCougar]

While I read the article Syc posted, I still don't understand something.

If the Ivory Coast is a completely independant nation, why are the French compelled to send troops in? Because IC was a former colony? I didn't read in the article where the president of IC called up the French president and said, "Hey, help us out here." It wasn't even implied. So I'm still confused.

[Elspode]

Originally Posted by jaguar

Elspode, they're there are the head of a sanctioned UN mission. Are you suggesting the US lodge a formal potest to the UN over a UN mission it supported?

Sure, why not? The French and the UN disagreed with us over Iraq, shouldn't we then disagree with them over this little dustup? Isn't that how international politics is supposed to work these days?

Note: I'm not making any judgements about right or wrong in either incursion. I'm just saying crap for the pure hell of it.

[jaguar]

Yes, you are, it's fairly clear. OC - the french troops are there as part of a UN mandated peacekeeping force between rebels and the government who in theory are in peace talks.

[russotto]

Originally Posted by jaguar

Yes, you are, it's fairly clear. OC - the french troops are there as part of a UN mandated peacekeeping force between rebels and the government who in theory are in peace talks.

Err, no:

France made clear that its 4,000 troops in Cote d’Ivoire would not become part of the UN peacekeeping force, numbering itself 6,000 UN troops.

[jaguar]

hm, I can't read tonight. Not good.

[Elspode]

Does that mean that I'm going to get un-condescended to?

No, probably not...after all, I did say I was just shit-talking.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Beestie

I do find it interesting, tho, that a renegade Republican [Tom DeLay] (who, btw, I despise) makes a remark about putting God in the public square and that trumps all the issues that I had to go to the article you cited and highlight myself.

More on the "renegade" Tom DeLay: House Republicans are planning to change the rules to allow DeLay to remain in his leadership position, even if he is indicted in Texas.