Why no thread on the French military intervention in Mali?

[Dinner]

The hostage death toll in Algeria is now up to 48.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-21114512

[Alexander's Horse]

Have they topped the Russian botched rescue tally yet?

[Hauldren Collider]

Does it really count as a rescue if you just gas the whole building, hostages, terrorists and all?

[MichaeltheGreat]

No, but it sends a message.

[Alexander's Horse]

in some countries, yes

[kentonio]

Not a single person got hurt by Three Mile Island.

Lies. Deadpool and Kayla were both killed, and Wolverine left with amnesia.

[Dauphin]

Wouldn't you feign amnesia if you starred in that movie?

[PLATO]

Very interesting how a thread on the French intervention in Mali turned into a thread on Nuclear safety. I think it speaks greatly to MTG's point that there is an Energy issue in play wrt the French.

As far as the physics, I have to agree with HC technically and Kid practically. It seems you guys were actually arguing two different points to me.

Finally, thanks Dinner for trying to keep things on topic!

[PLATO]

Now over 3000 French troops in Mali and France contemplating sending more.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/21/world/africa/mali-unrest/index.html?hpt=wo_c2

While I agree with France that this intervention was necessary, I am just wondering where the Security council resolution is that authorizes international involvement. It is true that the government requested their aid, but it is also true that this government could very easily be considered illigetimate due to it being in power via a coup. Seems a bit hypocritical to me on the international community's silence to needing UN authorization...

[Dauphin]

They did back it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-21021132

The UN Security Council has unanimously backed France's military intervention in Mali to fight Islamist rebels, officials have said.

The article is about a week old.

[molly bloom]

More dead Libyans no one gave a **** about in the first place and a stronger government in Tripoli.

Alternatively more dead Libyans and a government which sponsored international terror groups. Or several splinter states, based on flavour of religion, ethnicity, tribal allegiance....

Who cares?

I seem to recall reading of the United States first intervening in the area two centuries or so ago. So it would appear there's a bit of history between the two areas.

You know how these on again, off again, long distance romances can be.

[PLATO]

They did back it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-21021132

The UN Security Council has unanimously backed France's military intervention in Mali to fight Islamist rebels, officials have said.

The article is about a week old.

There is no resolution that I can find that says so. The last resolution concerning Mali says, in part,

Emphasizing that the Malian authorities have primary responsibility for
resolving the inter-linked crises facing the country and that any sustainable solution
to the crisis in Mali should be Malian-led

Can you straighten me out by pointing to the resolution?

[Dauphin]

I have no idea what the resolution position is, but the position appears to be one of de facto authorization even if not de jure.

I agree that this can still be questionable.

[molly bloom]

It should be noted that almost all the Islamic militants are foreign Arab fighters while the locals are blacks who hate them and want them out of their country. To compare the locals declare they love France and are all adorning their cars and houses with French flags. Merchants in Mali supposedly cannot keep French flags in stock as people keep buying out all the French flags in stores.

The Islamists scored a brilliant own goal by desecrating revered local monuments:

The attack on the ancient mausoleums comes just days after the U.N. cultural agency put Timbuktu on its list of sites that are in danger. UNESCO's World Heritage Committee urged the African Union and the international community to help protect Timbuktu and its 16 ancient mausoleums.

Toure said the destruction of tombs had nothing to do with Islam, adding that the Malian people will continue to defend their cultural values.

“We know it is something unacceptable; it has nothing to do with religion; it’s a violation of our culture, but they can do whatever they want. They cannot destroy the links we have with our people who are resting there in peace,” Toure said.

http://www.voanews.com/content/mali-to-soon-ask-icc-for-war-crimes-charges-against-northern-islamists/1352516.html

Winning hearts and minds through cultural vandalism.

[PLATO]

I have no idea what the resolution position is, but the position appears to be one of de facto authorization even if not de jure.

I agree that this can still be questionable.

I totally agree that ther is de facto authorization. In fact, if it was an African led mission, I believe that military intervention was authorized by UNSC Resolution 2085. The French led mission is legally problomatic however. I certainly don't expect any country to object, nor do I object. It is simply that the French were among the loudest raising hell over UNSC resolution 1441.

That being said, I agree that they are two totally different situations. However, if we are talking about international authority to use force, then one can't have it both ways.