|
Jamsque posted:This precise situation, where no one country has the mandate to interfere in the internal affairs of another, but the international community as a whole does, is what the UN Security Council is supposed to be for. Good thing they haven't even met about Libya yet. They won't meet before communications through back channels have the council come to a decision on what to do or not do.
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2011 23:32
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 05:02 |
|
|
Boner Slam posted:I am pretty sure the European countries can reach and control airspace on their border. At least they had no trouble reaching Serbia. Nato's airforce during the 1999 bombing campaign was mainly American though other Nato countries contributed.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2011 23:36
|
|
|
Boner Slam posted:So? German and British planes were participating in the bombing. No I'm saying that your example is a bad one.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2011 23:39
|
|
|
Anyone dreaming up scenarios where the US or any EU nation will get unilaterally involved is a crazy person. They won't get involved without a security council resolution because noone will want to be responsible for what happens once Qadaffi leaves.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2011 23:42
|
|
|
farraday posted:Mubarak is gone though and I think there would be no way for them to reestablish themselves faster with the Egyptian populace then protecting protesters in Libya. I really doubt that the new governors in Egypt wants to get involved in a war of any kind but that might just be me.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2011 00:19
|
|
|
farraday posted:There are wars and then there are wars. Being the well compensated Arab point man for preventing crimes against humanity in Libya is fairly different from invading. If you think the military in Egypt wants to get its hands dirty and hurt relations with pretty much every other country in the region you are a crazy person. Edit: Egypt has been and still will be well funded by America, that won't change. They have nothing to gain by getting into a war that they can't gain by simply providing humanitarian aid.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2011 00:26
|
|
|
So then exactly what are you saying.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2011 00:30
|
|
|
farraday posted:Meanwhile, despite frankly silly claims Egypt is still just being run by Mubarak men You lost me here cause you don't know what you're talking about.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2011 01:08
|
|
|
farraday posted:Don't be obtuse. Mubarak wouldn't have done half the things that have happened so far in Egypt. Claiming it is all a power shuffle with nothing changes is just paranoid conspiracy theorizing. Just because a few concessions have been made doesn't mean the same power brokers aren't running things hth.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2011 01:11
|
|
|
farraday posted:Yes, nothing's changed, you're absolutely right. Well done you spotted the secret conspiracy. Secret conspiracy? Tantawi was a Mubarak man and furthermore a military man. The military has been completely entwined with Mubarak and his regime and while certain cronies have been gone after that doesn't mean that some of the original power base is not still running things and looking to protect their interests.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2011 01:20
|
|
|
VVVthat's ones better.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2011 11:06
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:Couple of bits from the AJE Live Blog: I know people like to claim that Chad and Libya don't get along very well, but Qadaffi has been a big supporter of Deby (he backed him during the coup that brought Deby to power) and Qadaffi was (obiously) pretty instrumental in the Tripoli agreement.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2011 12:46
|
|
|
The Mitterand government was complicit in Rwanada and tied the hands of the UN.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2011 22:38
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:Can someone explain to me how a group of people can be victims of genocide while capturing vast swaths of territory at the same time? Rwanda? Unless you mean the rebel force itself and not the group as a whole?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2011 22:57
|
|
|
Jut posted:The US has put in place sanctions and the EU has drawn up a set of sanctions including travel bans, arms embargo and freezing of assets. The UN pays them to send troops and they actually end up making a small amount on the missions.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2011 23:30
|
|
|
I am shocked that the new old regime in Egypt is doing the same that the old old regime did!
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2011 00:56
|
|
|
Furious Mittens posted:I am a little bit shocked at how fast they resorted to their old tactics, however. They have to know that the international community is watching what happens in Egypt with a very fine microscope, both for their concern for Egypt and their own interests. It doesn't make sense that the military junta would crack down now and basically de-legitimize all of the good will that they've built up since the revolution started. They also know that most of the international community waits and waits and waits to give a poo poo until they know that the regime is going to topple then says something. Provided they only beat protestors and don't just start machine gunning them like in Libya the international community doesn't really care. The US and CIA are so up in the Egyptian militaries business there's no way that they want anything but the status quo to continue.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2011 01:06
|
|
|
Young Freud posted:I recall hearing about the Canadians building a CANDU reactor in Alberta to offset the energy costs from cracking oil sands. Essentially, instead of using the 10 barrels of oil to recover 1 bbl, they'll use electricity generated by the reactor to do it. Where did you hear all of this because none of what you wrote at all is correct.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2011 07:31
|
|
|
glug posted:And the US were influenced by the helping hand of France providing arms to us rebels, followed by Spain and the Dutch jumping in our our enemies and securing our breakaway, I mean you can do that poo poo all day and ultimately if you're going to judge a country and it's government you're going to have to judge that country and it's government. Cause what happened in 1776 is comparable to what happened in the 1980's when comparing current levels of corruption and their root causes. Are you serious?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2011 21:42
|
|
|
Intel5 posted:Has there been any major group in the Arab world arguing against a no fly zone? I don't see why we need to wait for a UN mandate when everyone in the region is calling for someone to step up and stem the bloodshed. A government still needs to go and do that though. And noone will because they don't want to be responsible for Libya after this mess is over (and they've bombed the wrong targets)
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2011 19:41
|
|
|
schadenfraud posted:I just can't see it working, not least because I don't trust Gadaffi not to start bombing everyone again if NATO go home. I think it's just a cynical attempt on his part to stay in power. You realize home is where the bombing runs are taking off from right?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2011 10:04
|
|
|
lorn Wayne posted:(see: Rwandan genocide for an example of what happens to countries with no such importance). France and specifically Mitterand was heavily involved with what took place in Rwanada.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2011 00:41
|
|
|
lorn Wayne posted:I don't want to derail and this is probably a debate for another time, but it still doesn't justify/explain the non-reaction of other NATO members. Clinton himself specifically stated that not helping Rwanda was one of his biggest failures. No it doesnt justify what happend, but the French clouded the judgement of the UN and NATO as to what the gently caress was going on and worked diligently to tie the hands of the UN while in Rwanda. That isn't to say that the rest of the West gets a pass, just that the reasoning is a lot more complex than "the west didn't care".
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2011 02:19
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 05:02 |
|
|
lorn Wayne posted:The reasoning definitely isn't black and white and France still has a lot to answer for. That being said, it's incorrect to think that the Clinton administration were less than fully aware of what was going on. I specifcally mentioned the UN and NATO, not just the US. France was actively involved in keeping from the UN and the Secretary General what was going on until it was too late, acting as a go between between the UN Secretary General's office and the Habyarimana regime and then tied the hands of the security council. Clinton has a whole host of other things to answer for, since both his and the Bush administration helped to train the RPF. TO say that there was no strategic interest at play though is probably worded wrong at best in the Guardian article. There was a strategic interest, it simply wasn't large enough to save a million people. The RPF was going to win, so American interests were largely protected. Anyway, as you said this derail shouldn't be in this thread. Go rebels!
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2011 03:16
|
|