49 replies to this topic

[Corp]

Lord Vetinari, on 17 January 2013 - 05:20 PM, said:

... just like South Vietnam asked the US for military aid... Afghanistan asked the USSR ...
Although old Hollande does seem to be trying to make up for France's perhaps less than pro-active reputation in the 20th century in military affairs, doesn't it; he's taking up where Sarkozy left off. One tyrant down, so let's now go on and defeat Terrorism!

So I guess you completely missed that fact that the African Union and the United Nations had already approved military action against the northern rebels. Hell one of the rebel groups, the MNLA, have declared that they're going to join the French in fighting the other rebel groups. And as the current Mali government is not a French puppet your comparisons to South Vietnam and Afghanistan are flawed.

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

Corp, on 17 January 2013 - 09:31 PM, said:

So I guess you completely missed that fact that the African Union and the United Nations had already approved military action against the northern rebels. Hell one of the rebel groups, the MNLA, have declared that they're going to join the French in fighting the other rebel groups. And as the current Mali government is not a French puppet your comparisons to South Vietnam and Afghanistan are flawed.

The African Union and the United Nations had already approved military action against the northern rebels? well, they're guaranteed success then. I'm sure that the Rebels will just lay down their arms, now that they know that the UN Disapproves. How exactly would knowing that the UN Disapproves be a deterrent? You'd hardly expect the UN to approve, would you? One of the rebel groups, the MNLA, have declared that they're going to join the French in fighting the other rebel groups, have they? Well, it sounds like they've already succeeded in making the situation even more chaotic. So now there's one rebel group on their side? How will they be able to differentiate between them? Sounds like an absolute recipe for chaos. Well done.

[Black Red Devil]

Lord Vetinari, on 18 January 2013 - 07:42 AM, said:

The African Union and the United Nations had already approved military action against the northern rebels? well, they're guaranteed success then. I'm sure that the Rebels will just lay down their arms, now that they know that the UN Disapproves. How exactly would knowing that the UN Disapproves be a deterrent? You'd hardly expect the UN to approve, would you? One of the rebel groups, the MNLA, have declared that they're going to join the French in fighting the other rebel groups, have they? Well, it sounds like they've already succeeded in making the situation even more chaotic. So now there's one rebel group on their side? How will they be able to differentiate between them? Sounds like an absolute recipe for chaos. Well done.

LOL  Funny isn't it?.  Our (the west, NATO...) remarkable success in bringing Justice, Democracy and Freedom to the world continues in Mali.  It's the same old BS excuse everytime. "We're fighting terrorism, injustice, fundamentalism, dictatorship, rebels, insurgents to democratic Govt's who need our help...blah, blah, blah".  A feeble excuse only the gullible and naive would believe. Some would want to make you believe we're the cops of the world.

Our "righteous interventions" have managed to create Al Queda and the Taliban.  Our "success" in Iraq lead to a million deaths. In Lybia we liberated the country from a dictator just to allow Al Queda into the country (and wait for it, watch this space).  Before we intervened there was no Al Queda presence in either Iraq nor Lybia, now they're running rampant.
We created the Taliban so we could defeat the Russians.  Now they're even spreading in Pakistan and as strong as ever in Afghanistan.
We helped liberate Egypt from a dictator we were subsidising, just to allow another bunch of fundamentalists (the MB) to take power.

Now we're in Mali supporting a bunch of rebels called the MNLA who have links to Al Queda.

Is it just me or is there an element of keystone cops in the way we "police" the world?  Every time we intervene we create more resistence and fundamentalsim.

We should learn from the Chinese who seem to be making inroads into Africa through pussyfooting, not by sledgehammering (that is, if you believe we're there for Democracy, Justice and Freedom).

Edited by BlackRedLittleDevil, 18 January 2013 - 10:20 AM.

[The New Richard Nixon]

BlackRedLittleDevil, on 18 January 2013 - 10:15 AM, said:

LOL  Funny isn't it?.  Our (the west, NATO...) remarkable success in bringing Justice, Democracy and Freedom to the world continues in Mali.  It's the same old BS excuse everytime. "We're fighting terrorism, injustice, fundamentalism, dictatorship, rebels, insurgents to democratic Govt's who need our help...blah, blah, blah".  A feeble excuse only the gullible and naive would believe. Some would want to make you believe we're the cops of the world.

Our "righteous interventions" have managed to create Al Queda and the Taliban.  Our "success" in Iraq lead to a million deaths. In Lybia we liberated the country from a dictator just to allow Al Queda into the country (and wait for it, watch this space).  Before we intervened there was no Al Queda presence in either Iraq nor Lybia, now they're running rampant.
We created the Taliban so we could defeat the Russians.  Now they're even spreading in Pakistan and as strong as ever in Afghanistan.
We helped liberate Egypt from a dictator we were subsidising, just to allow another bunch of fundamentalists (the MB) to take power.

Now we're in Mali supporting a bunch of rebels called the MNLA who have links to Al Queda.

Is it just me or is there an element of keystone cops in the way we "police" the world?  Every time we intervene we create more resistence and fundamentalsim.

We should learn from the Chinese who seem to be making inroads into Africa through pussyfooting, not by sledgehammering (that is, if you believe we're there for Democracy, Justice and Freedom).

Al Queda pretty much existed long before ww1....

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

The New Richard Nixon, on 18 January 2013 - 02:18 PM, said:

Al Queda pretty much existed long before ww1....

before WW1? If you mean Arabic resistance movements, then perhaps so, Lawrence of Arabia found them useful, but if it can be called that, Al Q has only existed as an organisation since the 80s.

[The New Richard Nixon]

Lord Vetinari, on 18 January 2013 - 02:30 PM, said:

before WW1? If you mean Arabic resistance movements, then perhaps so, Lawrence of Arabia found them useful, but if it can be called that, Al Q has only existed as an organisation since the 80s.

Yeah Lawrence of Arabia. The name Al Q maybe from the 80s but smaller groups may have the same thinking alot earlier

[and then]

So the West is a suicidal entity?  We create the seeds of our own destruction?  Works for me I guess.  I don't quite see the humor in it though.

[Corp]

Lord Vetinari, on 18 January 2013 - 07:42 AM, said:

The African Union and the United Nations had already approved military action against the northern rebels? well, they're guaranteed success then. I'm sure that the Rebels will just lay down their arms, now that they know that the UN Disapproves. How exactly would knowing that the UN Disapproves be a deterrent? You'd hardly expect the UN to approve, would you? One of the rebel groups, the MNLA, have declared that they're going to join the French in fighting the other rebel groups, have they? Well, it sounds like they've already succeeded in making the situation even more chaotic. So now there's one rebel group on their side? How will they be able to differentiate between them? Sounds like an absolute recipe for chaos. Well done.

You completely missed my point. This isn't France just decided it wants to bomb people, this is action that has support locally as well as internationally. And a minute of research would have told you that the MNLA was already at odds with the other rebel groups. Is the situation chaoic, yes it is and there will need to be hard work to sort things out but it's worth doing. Maybe efforts could be made to stamp out slavery in Mali at the same time. Or would you have rathered the international community tell the people of Mali to **** off and die?


And Devil you might want to actually do a bit of research into the situation in Mali since a lot of your claims are false. The African Union was going to get involved before France decided to take action. This is not a Western only action. The MNLA is fighting the Islamic rebels not working with them, not anymore. As for those being gullible and naive you might want to look at yourself since you're repeating the lie about who's running Libya. Should all pleas for help from Mali be ignored? Better to let the country burn than to give the impression of Western "imperialism"?

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

Corp, on 18 January 2013 - 05:24 PM, said:

You completely missed my point. This isn't France just decided it wants to bomb people, this is action that has support locally as well as internationally. And a minute of research would have told you that the MNLA was already at odds with the other rebel groups. Is the situation chaoic, yes it is and there will need to be hard work to sort things out but it's worth doing. Maybe efforts could be made to stamp out slavery in Mali at the same time. Or would you have rathered the international community tell the people of Mali to **** off and die?

Who on earth was talking about deciding to bomb people? Teling the people of Mail to **** off and die? That's all a bit emotive isn't it? The point is that this could very easily be Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Egypt etc, over and over ad infinitum. It doesn't matter whether it has the UN rubber stamp, the UN rubber stamp rarely makes the slightest difference one way or the other, does it. Yet again stepping into other people's civil wars. Of course it has support locally, intervention in civil wars always has the support from those whose side you take. If the African union and the neighbouring countries were so concerned, perhaps they might think about stepping in to stop it themselves, rather than always waiting for the West to do something, and then, of course, when they do, the only reward they get is Islamic Brotherhoods and so on b****ing about Imperialism. Perhaps, though, as it's France this time, no one's too bothered and can take the moral high ground, unlike if it was the US and/or Uk once again?

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

Corp, on 18 January 2013 - 05:24 PM, said:

And Devil you might want to actually do a bit of research into the situation in Mali since a lot of your claims are false. The African Union was going to get involved before France decided to take action. This is not a Western only action. The MNLA is fighting the Islamic rebels not working with them, not anymore. As for those being gullible and naive you might want to look at yourself since you're repeating the lie about who's running Libya. Should all pleas for help from Mali be ignored? Better to let the country burn than to give the impression of Western "imperialism"?

So Hollande decided to take action before the African Union could, purely out of the goodness of his heart because of France's historic ties to mali? That sounds suspiciously like Tony Blair's egocentric interventionism, wanting to portray himself as the great humanitarian fighter for the cause of Good. Be very, very suspicious.

[Corp]

Come up with an alternative course of action. Or should the world just ignore what happens in Mali?

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

Corp, on 18 January 2013 - 06:05 PM, said:

Come up with an alternative course of action. Or should the world just ignore what happens in Mali?

come up with an alternative course of action to perpetually having to intervene in other people's civil wars. can you think of one such intervention since, perhaps, Kosovo where it's led to a happy and peaceful outcome? Iraq? is that really stable and peaceful? And even if it is, how long did it take to get to that stage and at what cost? Afghanisatn? er...still waiting ... Libya? Stable and peaceful?

[The New Richard Nixon]

Lord Vetinari, on 18 January 2013 - 06:37 PM, said:

come up with an alternative course of action to perpetually having to intervene in other people's civil wars. can you think of one such intervention since, perhaps, Kosovo where it's led to a happy and peaceful outcome? Iraq? is that really stable and peaceful? And even if it is, how long did it take to get to that stage and at what cost? Afghanisatn? er...still waiting ... Libya? Stable and peaceful?

Kosovo has not lead to a peaceful outcome, before it came independent, NATO troops were still stationed there.

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

The New Richard Nixon, on 18 January 2013 - 07:23 PM, said:

Kosovo has not lead to a peaceful outcome, before it came independent, NATO troops were still stationed there.

true, I was being generous there. And that could have led to a war with Russia.

[Black Red Devil]

The New Richard Nixon, on 18 January 2013 - 02:18 PM, said:

Al Queda pretty much existed long before ww1....

During the Ottoman Empire.  Are you serious?