Where is the call to liberate poor west africans? http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/05/international/africa/05AFRI.html Sure there is not imedidate political/economical gain in stoping this savagery, but remember it is in envirnoments like this that the next Al'Qeda will be created.
> The next militant Islamic group funded by billions > will arise from West Africa? This wasn't the case in Iraq - why not the Ivory Coast? > The're former French colonies, let them deal with > the problems. Iraq was not a former US colony. There is not good reason why invading Iraq was good and invading Ivory Coast would be bad. Let's do it!
Re: Re: Let's do something good for a change. Yes. It is envirnoments like this that extreme milatants come from and with the diamond money in this region, it is not inconceivable that these people will cause alot a trouble for a long time. Here is just an example of their brutality. rebels in Sierra Leone would go to villages and gather up all the male villagers. Once gathered, the milatants would use machetes and cut off the villagers left arm and warn them that if they joined the other side that they would cut off their right arm. Truely disturbing
Re: Re: Let's do something good for a change. The Pro-Iraq-War crowd has been all "rah-rah" about liberating the Iraqi people from an evil tyrant, now that the WMD's and threat to national security rhetoric appears to be false. However it is "tuff titty" for the West African nations where unspeakable atrocities are being committed.
Re: Re: Let's do something good for a change. One of the most important aspects of the French colonization of West Africa was the requirement placed on the colony to pay its oem way as a colony. The French administration sought to increase productivity and extract valuable resources. They fostered production of groundnuts and cotton where appropriate conditions were present and imposed taxation as a means of inducing participation in the cash economy. Where crops could not be grown, they encouraged migration to wage- earning areas. Although slavery had been abolished in Europe and the New World during the middle part of the nineteenth century, some forms of servitude continued on the West African landscape and the French in their pursuit of gain often looked the other way in order to insure the success of their programs. The French colonial encounter in West Africa was driven by commercial interests and, perhaps to a lesser degree, a civilizing mission. The political administration and the economic interests were fairly uniform throughout the colonial period. Little was done to improve the lives of West Africans, although attempts were made to provide minimal health and educational services. Whereas in the British areas of West Africa some portion of the economic gain accrued to an African middle class, no such dynamic occurred in the French context.
While West Africa has almost as much resources (Oil & Diamonds) as the Middle East. I believe a war there would actually be more like Vietnam than critics said Afghanistan and Iraq would be. Not to mention all the African-American's that would oppose of a war with their celebrated ancestral home. I'd agree that it's a two-faced type of deal here. Also, since these were French colonies the French would make an even bigger stink about the US going in than they did in Iraq.
What makes you think so? There already is a UN mandate justifying the presence of French and West-African troops in Ivory Coast: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/2727365.stm "French and West African troops in Ivory Coast have won a mandate from the United Nations Security Council to use force in peacekeeping operations there. The Security Council voted unanimously on Tuesday to back the troops' deployment with a review of the situation in six months' time. Peacekeepers: France has 2,500 troops in Ivory Coast Ecowas has 200 out of a planned deployment of 1,500 Rebels in the divided West African state have reportedly launched the first attacks since signing a ceasefire with the Ivorian Government in France on 24 January" On the other hand, the US is blocking further involvement by the UN: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38948-2003Apr25.html "The Bush administration has moved to drastically scale down a French-backed U.N. proposal to send more than 250 U.N. peacekeepers to the former French colony of Ivory Coast, according to U.S. and U.N. officials. The request to streamline the $25 million U.N. political mission comes just days after Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said France would face consequences for leading opposition to war against Iraq. It marks the first major test of U.S.-French cooperation beyond Iraq at the United Nations since the war" And: "The dispute nevertheless has raised concern among U.N. diplomats and outside analysts that the administration may be prepared to penalize the Ivory Coast -- which has been riven by ethnic, religious and political conflict -- to exact revenge against the French" Edit: sorry, I hadn't read the original NYTimes article posted above, which already mention these points, at least partially. I was responding to the last post on this thread.