Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why no thread on the French military intervention in Mali?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by PLATO View Post
    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.
    Actually, you can. A recognized government does not need UNSC authorization to request foreign troops for training, security, or counterinsurgency operations within its own borders. The 1441 issue was not about aiding Saddam at Saddam's request (although one could argue he was asking for it )
    When all else fails, blame brown people. | Hire a teen, while they still know it all. | Trump-Palin 2016. "You're fired." "I quit."

    Comment


    • Originally posted by molly bloom View Post
      The Islamists scored a brilliant own goal by desecrating revered local monuments:






      Winning hearts and minds through cultural vandalism.

      [ATTACH=CONFIG]173313[/ATTACH]
      They don't care. They view the locals as apostates and heretics.
      When all else fails, blame brown people. | Hire a teen, while they still know it all. | Trump-Palin 2016. "You're fired." "I quit."

      Comment


      • Originally posted by PLATO View Post
        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.
        I think that this can be read as diplomatic gibberish for what you can't find.
        With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.

        Steven Weinberg

        Comment


        • Originally posted by DinoDoc View Post
          **** man the US produces more oil per day than Libya. The fabulous fruits of the western invasion then: Algeria attack may have link to Libya camps They sure did keep those rag heads from destabilizing other places in Africa from Libya.
          So much for relying on early information.

          Now the word is no Libyans or Libyan camps, although we can blame the Canuckistanis:
          Nuttin' to do with Libya

          The attack involved months of planning and involved militants from eight countries -- Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt, Mali, Niger, Canada and Mauritania, according to APS.

          Sallal said the terrorist team that took the hostages had entered the country from northern Mali, where Malian and French authorities are battling Islamists who control the area.
          When all else fails, blame brown people. | Hire a teen, while they still know it all. | Trump-Palin 2016. "You're fired." "I quit."

          Comment


          • Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat View Post
            Actually, you can. A recognized government does not need UNSC authorization to request foreign troops for training, security, or counterinsurgency operations within its own borders. The 1441 issue was not about aiding Saddam at Saddam's request (although one could argue he was asking for it )
            The question here, however, is the legitimacy of a government that assumed power by coup. Otherwise, I completely agree.
            "I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you're not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration." - Hillary Clinton, 2003

            Comment


            • Originally posted by BlackCat View Post
              I think that this can be read as diplomatic gibberish for what you can't find.
              There is, however, that little tidbit of the Secretary General's report...which has not been issued to my knowlege.

              Once agai, I feel the need to reiterate, I have no issue with the French action. Just pointing out how explicit "legal" authorization is toyed with for political gain.
              "I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you're not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration." - Hillary Clinton, 2003

              Comment


              • Originally posted by PLATO View Post
                The question here, however, is the legitimacy of a government that assumed power by coup. Otherwise, I completely agree.
                I think the world said "Awww, that's not nice, guys" but nobody's recalled their ambassadors that I know of. Coups don't worry me, if the new leadership is non-psycho and more competent than the old leaders. It's a tough call to make, since we don't question the legitimacy of beacons of democracy like Russia or China or Saudi Arabia. My (limited) understanding of coup is that (so far) the leads weren't a bunch of power-hungry thugs a la Chavez, they were just sick of the elected government's apparent inability to pour piss out of a boot with instructions on the bottom, in dealing with the Tuareg rebels. It's still way different than reading 1441 as an authority to impose regime change by invasion.
                When all else fails, blame brown people. | Hire a teen, while they still know it all. | Trump-Palin 2016. "You're fired." "I quit."

                Comment


                • I think you'll find that overall al-Qaida and it's affiliates have killed more muslims than non-muslims.
                  "I say shoot'em all and let God sort it out in the end!

                  Comment


                  • Supposedly the militants have been deliberately hiding out in civilian houses and using the civilians as human shields. The French have just been bombing them any way, and rightly so I might add as anything else just would reward the militants for such behavior and encourage them to use the tactic more often. Sadly, eventually this will eventually have an impact on the support people in northern Mali give to the French. That is, no doubt, why the Islamists use the tactic.
                    Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.

                    Comment


                    • It's the French. What else did you expect from a people who wince at the sight of a small baby mouse?

                      Comment


                      • A small baby mouse sounds like the kind of thing the French would eat.

                        Comment


                        • The French have historically had a very capable military. The whole "french are weak" meme only came about after they got conquered by the Nazis, and let's face it, Russia faced a bigger thrashing than the French ever did, and the only reason they didn't get conquered was because they live in an abominable snowy wasteland and have terrible roads. But no one ever calls Russia weak.
                          If there is no sound in space, how come you can hear the lasers?
                          ){ :|:& };:

                          Comment


                          • The French aren't weak, they're cowardly. And their soldiers tend to go on strike. Russia on the other hand is a third world hellhole with no regard for the lives of its citizens.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by gribbler View Post
                              A small baby mouse sounds like the kind of thing the French would eat.
                              Ratatouille actually consists of vegetables.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Hauldren Collider View Post
                                The French have historically had a very capable military. The whole "french are weak" meme only came about after they got conquered by the Nazis, and let's face it, Russia faced a bigger thrashing than the French ever did, and the only reason they didn't get conquered was because they live in an abominable snowy wasteland and have terrible roads. But no one ever calls Russia weak.
                                Evidence?
                                “As a lifelong member of the Columbia Business School community, I adhere to the principles of truth, integrity, and respect. I will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do.”
                                "Capitalism ho!"

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X