Making A Sand Sinker Mold

Funny irony!

D years on the night of December 30, Bobby Farrell, the lead singer of disco "Boney M" died of heart failure.

Ironically, his death occurred 94 years after cell death and in the same town as that has indirectly made the group famous: a Rasputin.

For punishment, we will return the clip.

Famous Baby Quotes By Famous People

Happy New Year!

Good Health!

Our best wishes for happiness in this new year 2011!

Sample Vote Of Thanks Wedding Speeches

Côte d'Ivoire. A democracy impossible? (2 / 2)

A oday Following the article on democracy and its application to specific cases of Côte d'Ivoire.


The reasons for choosing Ouattara.
First, elections were successfully held. Gbagbo had confidence in his destiny, but the Ivorian people did not follow. But why?

Mainly unemployment and the economic situation. Ouattara, whose work as deputy director of the IMF was not so bad and who was, at other times, the last Prime Minister of President Houphouet-Boigny symbol of an era of prosperity, was convinced of the soundness of its economic program during the televised debate. For its part, Gbagbo seemed more concerned about the idea of demonstrating that Ouattara was a troublemaker, a terrorist or that he was not Ivorian for re-election. Still, in this debate, Ouattara Gbagbo denounced the inaction of the employment front, youth unemployment and simply the Ivorian daily. Gbagbo left reflected that his main goal to prevent the arrival in power of Ouattara and the fate of non-Ivorian. Is to misunderstand the Ivorian many of whom have had their situation deteriorate just by applying the concept of Ivorian. "

The nostalgia for a thriving economy for the older ones, fear of unemployment for young people alongside the importance given to "ivoirité have been the main reasons for this vote.


The role of France.
If a French intervention as they have always done in Africa is not possible, the context is not exactly the same as before. In 2004, none of neither side wanted the intervention of France, because this intervention prevented the two sides to fight and thus resolve the situation between them by guns. The intervention of France and therefore the Licorne were decided to preserve the lives of civilians and not to resolve the situation on the political level while in the present context, France has been careful not to step in and pushed for this to be an African solution that is implemented, whether by the African Union or ECOWAS (Economic Community of West Africa). France has also expected that the UN and its Secretary-General take the floor while pushing the United States of America to intervene so we just do not accuse him to intervene. With this attitude, Paris takes the risk of seeing its influence in its former colonial empire in decline, but an alternative seems more risky politically.

This time, the international community has intervened and is unanimous in recognizing the victory of Ouattara, Africans as Europeans, Americans and many others. Intervention of France would then necessarily be in an international context, under the aegis UN. The UN itself has not the strength nor the political strength to force the destiny, it is that France, the former regional power to act. A bit like in Korea in the 1950s when the Anglo-American forces were but the UN mandate. Only the flag was then changed on the uniforms of soldiers. All things considered, should the UN calls on France, if necessary with the help of African countries to respond to this to enforce the will of the Ivorian people.

This intervention sought by the elected president Alassane Ouattara, can also be justified by the violence, killings of supporters of Ivorian and crimes committed by paramilitaries and mercenaries under the orders of Gbagbo.


What action?
The situation is complex. The difficulties of the Ivorian democracy are not searching in the major democratic principles but more in a local economy and very special blend ivoirité. The debate on "ivoirité approaches also another debate on French identity this time. In both cases, suggesting that the debate should be a certain purity to be a citizen of a country further undermined democracy than it has strengthened.

practice, except that Laurent Gbagbo decided to return to reason, an armed intervention seems inevitable. Yes, it will not be a cakewalk and there will almost certainly victims but should we let people suffer violence and being robbed of his destiny. The role of the West is also responding to requests for assistance sent to it by the peoples of those countries where democracy is fragile. In Afghanistan, the West turned a blind eye and has argued that lip Commander Massoud, he had to die and that the attacks hit the United States at the heart reacts to the West.

Another memory that should motivate us to act: fear of another Rwanda. At the time, France had ignored and / or allowed to do things until it is too late. Côte d'Ivoire, the border with genocide is not so thick you think. The kidnapping of supporters of Ouattara, speedy executions by Liberian mercenaries, the discovery of mass graves at the gates of Abidjan are reasons enough to act.

Feeling Wet Before Period Can I Be Pregnant

Côte d'Ivoire. A democracy impossible? (1 / 2)

T lways following section of the Heretic, here are the following analysis. In his article, there are two things: a reflection on democracy in general and its application to developing countries especially in Africa, and then a specific application to the case of Côte d'Ivoire. Following this division, I offer you a part of democracy and a more specific case of Côte d'Ivoire.


Democracy is not required.
In forum, Guy Sitbon wrote that France can not act in the Ivorian crisis without his action against him. It was not so wrong, because that is what happened during the attempted takeover by the "Forces Nouvelles" in 2004 after the Marcoussis agreements. Accused by the rebels to cut them in their tracks by Gbagbo and not to apply the defense agreement signed in the early independence of Côte d'Ivoire.

The current situation is slightly different since France has been careful not to intervene. One can share his opinion on one thing: democracy not necessary.

It should be made clear "Democracy is not necessary ... It is being built. "

Heretic said that" democracy is not the reign of a majority, it is the product of consensus. . In reality, though! A majority can impose its will over a given period is the essence of representative democracy.

If the vision of democracy is the belief that it is sufficient to hold free elections for democracy reality is wrong, because things are more complicated. Democracy takes time to build.

A telling example is the implementation of the republican idea of the Third Republic in the spirit of the French. In his time there was a kind of democratic dictatorship of the Republicans to implement the republican idea. Its location was long and difficult as evidenced by the clashes between secularists and believers, reactions to education by the hussars of the Republic. Only gradually, when the republican idea has taken root and there was agreement on how the majority to exercise his will that the radicals have accepted that the right to participate in power and gain a majority.

This construction of democracy is seen elsewhere in Iraq where a consensus is beginning to be found on how to exercise power. The violent upheavals of the early, followed by a period of relative calm between the participants in power and the fight against terrorist groups like Al Qaeda. Of course, these upheavals have not disappeared and the persecution of Christians in this country remind us. However one can not deny real progress.


"Manners before the law."
Heretic said that democracy is not a matter of law. True, but without the right, its construction and performance are simply impossible. The law is an essential element, necessary for democracy and the two are inextricably linked. Found in these words, the words of Montesquieu gives an important role to "morals."

Again, this is not false, but one must understand the idea of morals in the sense that it had the eighteenth century and not in the modern sense is quite different. The old meaning is much broader than the current direction, which changes many things. In reality, this means that our friend "character" is not limited to driving, but is the method of construction of thought. And it takes time.

however, suggest that democracy is a problem of rich and can not emerge in countries in difficult circumstances or poor, is a mistake. If the examples of democracy are not legions in the South, there are few. Botswana is one with an effective health system that have few resources, with a healthy democracy that works pretty well. Other countries in Asia or South America show that anything is possible. Here, again this was made possible by a will, and following a structure that has taken time, long time.