'Imperialism Ho!' - France invades Mali to help it against Islamist revolt

 Pages PREV 1 2 3
 

Blablahb:

Edible Avatar:
Regardless, the UN is in place to ensure that the nations around Mali and the international community have a say for or against military intervention.

I don't see how that responds to my post. You claimed France is wrong, I explained how they're right.

Edible Avatar:
By the way, Libya didn't actually turn out well for the US or Europe:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/ex-gitmo-detainee-implicated-consulate-attack_652751.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Benghazi_attack
Cost money and gave a haven for Sunni militants, which goes against the current administration's stated goals.

Two mistakes: Supporting the rebels wasn't about 'turning out right', it was about doing the right thing and preventing a bloodbath. Secondly, sust because some American got killed doesn't mean something turned out badly.

"You claimed France is wrong, I explained how they're right."

Yeah, and I explained that the international community should have a say in a potential regional conflict.

It's already been said that Mali explicitly asked France for military assistance, and in addition, between that request and the first French troops effectively deploying, the UN passed a resolution on this.

Incorrect, the resolution (2071) passed stated that a motion should be put forth to protect Mali and the international community and NGOs should provide aid, it did not actually provide a resolution for European military intervention.

here, wikipedia puts it more eloquently:

While authorising the planning of force, and dedicating UN resources to this planning,[128] UN Security Council Resolution 2071 does not authorize the deployment of force.[127] However, UN Security Council Resolution 2085, passed on 20 December 2012, "authorizes the deployment of an African-led International Support Mission in Mali (AFISMA) for an initial period of one year." [131]

About the Libyan operation: from the UN standpoint, yes, you are right. We DID prevent a bloodbath from Gaddhafi's forces and allowed the Libyans to elect a sovereign government. However, the new Sunni-majority government supports elements that are hostile to the US and Europe (Al-Qaeda, LIFG, etc). There's even BBC articles out right now talking about how training camps for these groups have been established, and NATO can't do anything about it. So in that sense, it was counter-productive to European and American interests to have intervened in Libya, even though Ghaddhafi was a douche-nozzle.

Edible Avatar:

Blablahb:

Edible Avatar:
Regardless, the UN is in place to ensure that the nations around Mali and the international community have a say for or against military intervention.

I don't see how that responds to my post. You claimed France is wrong, I explained how they're right.

Edible Avatar:
By the way, Libya didn't actually turn out well for the US or Europe:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/ex-gitmo-detainee-implicated-consulate-attack_652751.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Benghazi_attack
Cost money and gave a haven for Sunni militants, which goes against the current administration's stated goals.

Two mistakes: Supporting the rebels wasn't about 'turning out right', it was about doing the right thing and preventing a bloodbath. Secondly, sust because some American got killed doesn't mean something turned out badly.

"You claimed France is wrong, I explained how they're right."

Yeah, and I explained that the international community should have a say in a potential regional conflict.

It's already been said that Mali explicitly asked France for military assistance, and in addition, between that request and the first French troops effectively deploying, the UN passed a resolution on this.

Incorrect, the resolution (2071) passed stated that a motion should be put forth to protect Mali and the international community and NGOs should provide aid, it did not actually provide a resolution for European military intervention.

here, wikipedia puts it more eloquently:

While authorising the planning of force, and dedicating UN resources to this planning,[128] UN Security Council Resolution 2071 does not authorize the deployment of force.[127] However, UN Security Council Resolution 2085, passed on 20 December 2012, "authorizes the deployment of an African-led International Support Mission in Mali (AFISMA) for an initial period of one year." [131]

About the Libyan operation: from the UN standpoint, yes, you are right. We DID prevent a bloodbath from Gaddhafi's forces and allowed the Libyans to elect a sovereign government. However, the new Sunni-majority government supports elements that are hostile to the US and Europe (Al-Qaeda, LIFG, etc). There's even BBC articles out right now talking about how training camps for these groups have been established, and NATO can't do anything about it. So in that sense, it was counter-productive to European and American interests to have intervened in Libya, even though Ghaddhafi was a douche-nozzle.

.
Ghaddafi was a mostly pacified douche-nozzle. The pressure in early 2000s pretty much turned him into an exclusive kleptocrat, with much of his support for world Jihad and training camps removed or suppressed. I prefer an autocratic Kleptocrat over the mess we have in Libya at the moment.

Mother of Mercy, I really have to start following the news again =S

Wouldn't be suprised if France is doing this not just because the goverment is a bunch of good samaritans, but because of some worldly interest in Mali. Not that I would consider that morally wrong, a man gotta look after his business, but it's kinda tiresome that there always instead is some bullshit explaination given.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked