French President Sarkozy lashes out at small US role in Libya and says mission will last until Gadda

reply to post by nenothtu


i agree what you said though but Afghanistan any nation attacked is considered an attack on all. Libya did not meet that. Which is why i hate NATO and the UN.

Originally posted by ReverendPritchett
This is atrocious I can't believe this is happening. Terrible. Since the troops are pulling out in Afghan I believe they are all coming home to tend to civil unrest.

And Imagine, and remember this my American friend, that without France there would NOT had been any American Revolution to begin with.

Just remember this, when you are watching the world from a very narrative point of view!





Faites l'amour

Nous la guerre

Nos vies à l'envers...

Yeah.... Screw Them All!

Peace!

reply to post by Paulioetc15

No the UN asked the US to do something about Iraq due to our military might

my friend you are misinformed... Both the second Iraq and the afgan occupation were never ratified under the UN. y are both illegal occupations.
What do you think the UN ratified a war because some loons took down a couple of towers. Get a clue. You can think what you like but the facts speak for themselves, that is common knowledge. Try reading up on the UN charter, that would be a good start....

reply to post by purplemer


ok sry cannot talk you anymore. Good day.

Originally posted by Paulioetc15
reply to post by purplemer

 

ok sry cannot talk you anymore. Good day.

convient that is it not, when confronted with the truth on a debating site. you cannot talk to me anymore.. May I suggest you try learning a little truth, there is nothing wrong with being wrong sometimes. What is wrong is holding onto opinions that are clearly wrong...
Truth can hurt but it is the truth... America is now responsible for war crimes,there have been politicians calling for prosocution..... and that is a fact. So jump off your hight horse and get with the programme..

I think you all are on the wrong page when it comes to what the problem is. France has laid out there plans for Africa in advance. When I say in advance I mean since 2008.

www.wikileaks.de...
www.wikileaks.de...
www.wikileaks.de...

¶29. (C) In sum, French military objectives in Africa
parallel the non-military aspects of Sarkozy's Africa policy
in terms of strengthening African capabilities; reducing, if
not ending, African dependence on France; promoting openness
and transparency; abandoning colonial-era sentiments and
"special" treatment; engaging the EU and other bodies into
French-led programs; and identifying and exploiting shared
interests and priorities. Ancillary benefits would include
increased commitment to democratization, meritocracy,
professionalism, and self-reliance.

The reason France wants Africa to quit depending on them is because France has bases all over Africa. But one of the major problems of trying to use NATO to fight all over Africa like Starkozy wants is Africa does not sit in the North Atlantic. Only part of it does.

www.nytimes.com...

“There is a new trend in the Security Council in which the responsibility to protect principle is gaining a new hold,” said Stéphane Crouzat, spokesman for the French mission to the United Nations. Invoking past conflicts in Rwanda, Darfur and Bosnia, he added: “There is a desire to intervene before war crimes or ethnic cleansing can take place.”

That sounds to me like the Bush Doctrine of preemptive war. And those countries are not in the North Atlantic. But there on the list for France to invade.

Heres more secret files from Embassy in Paris thanks to Wikileaks.

www.wikileaks.de...

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by Paulioetc15

 

We always do the dirty work than other nations don't want to do(Kosovo war, Vietnam, Gulf war)

Sick..
In the kosovo war many people died on the ground because the USA only wanted to drop bombs from the air not put troops on the ground. Other NATO countries did. America messed that up big time...
The gulf war was Americas idea, and was an illegal war not ratified by the United Nations. It was the illegal occupation of a sovereign state. Afganistan the same.Vietnam wasa russian and american playground with dire consequences..

Get up on the wrong side of the bed this morning?

The US had NO damn business in Kosovo. None. Zero. Zilch. Zip. Nada. neither air NOR ground forces. I had some friends contracted to KFORS there, and I had a chance to go, but didn't. Yeah, they were on the ground, but they were working for KFORS and the UN, not the US. America, as a nation, had NO damn business having anything at all to do with that war. It was not our fight.

You all may be at odds over terminology rather than substance vis-a-vis the "Gulf War". In America, "The Gulf War" generally refers to Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm, in 1991. The only occupation there was Saddam Hussein's occupation of Kuwait. America folded and went home before they even reached Baghdad, a dismal loss to lay at the feet of a big-talking Bush Sr.

In any event, neither Desert Shield/Storm nor Operation Iraqi Freedom were "illegal". No law was broken to prosecute those wars, so they cannot, by any definitiion of law, be considered "illegal". Ill-advised, yes, wrong (in the case of OIF), yes, but emphatically NOT illegal.

I've yet to uncover a law anywhere that even makes Saddam's occupation of Kuwait "illegal", but it too was ill-advised and wrong.

The US Afghanistan war is wholly justifiable. For that matter, the Soviet Afghan war was justifiable, albeit with a potentially manufactured justification. Soviet aid WAS requested by the Socialist regime in control of Afghanistan at the time, but perhaps with some Russian arm-twisting.

I don't recall hearing of any Russian soldiers in Vietnam at the time the Americans were there, and the much touted "AK-47's" being used by the NVA and Viet Cong were Chinese Type 56 rifles, not Russian AKs. I'm not sure how you get that it was an "American and Russian playground".

So go and stick your war rhetoric deep and hard were the sun dont shine and stop playing the sacrafical us card.... The sooner Europe gets its own amry and scraps NATO the better, really you lads dont have a clue...

Sounds like someone needs a nap...

Still, I agree that the US needs to get the hell out of NATO, an organization that has outlived it's mandate. Yup, Europe needs to get it's own army, so the US can stop taking up it's slack.

We've got better things we could be doing with our money. Worked out pretty well for Europe in WWII - why, Europe damn near conquered Europe!

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by Paulioetc15

 

No the UN asked the US to do something about Iraq due to our military might

my friend you are misinformed... Both the second Iraq and the afgan occupation were never ratified under the UN. y are both illegal occupations.
What do you think the UN ratified a war because some loons took down a couple of towers. Get a clue. You can think what you like but the facts speak for themselves, that is common knowledge. Try reading up on the UN charter, that would be a good start....

The UN Charter has nothing to do with law, and the UN is not a law-making body. You're absolutely right though in your assessment that facts speak for themselves - they're just in really short supply here...

The day America, the UK, China, or any other nation needs the UN to "ratify" their going forth to war is the very day that they cease to exist as a sovereign entity.

Unlike NATO, The UN has not outlived it's usefulness - it never had any to begin with. The US ought to ditch the UN right along with NATO. Kick 'em out of New York. They can set up shop in Brussels. We've got better thing to do with out money than dump it into the bottomless pit that is the UN, too.

“Things are progressing. I would have liked them to progress more quickly, but they are progressing,” he said. “We must continue until Mr. Gaddafi leaves.”


Hang on a minute: wasn't the NATO enforced no-fly zone supposedly intended to protect civilians ?

Regime change wasn't an officially acknowledged goal when NATO decided to go into action in March.

David Cameron bangs on about letting the Libyan people decide what's best for their own country - and I'm sure that Sarkozy utters such similar platitudes - yet ''removing Gaddafi'' has now apparently become an official ''justification'' for the continued Western military intervention in Libya.

What if Gaddafi instructs his forces to relinquish arms and enter into a ceasefire ?

Sarkozy has already dictated that NATO's actions must continue ''until Mr. Gaddafi leaves'', but what if the Libyan people choose to keep their current leader at the helm of their country ?

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes


Don't you mean Northern countries?
France is north of them.

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes


The US admiral admitted that that their goal is to kill Gadhafi and needs to leave once and for all. www.cbsnews.com...

I am confused still!

Gates comment said it would probably fail due to "European reluctance to exercise military might. "

"Reluctance to exercise military might" means you have the military might (the necessary weapons, troops and equipment) and you are choosing not to use it , right?

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by hp1229

 

You could have just edited your first post to fix that "E" you know..

P.S. don't buy into the whole anti-french attitude the French actually have it nicer than us for a reason.

edit on 24-6-2011 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)

yes I tried but it was too late as once in a while the webpage hangs and it ends up being duplicate posts.

Well I am not so sure if the French have it nicer than us at this time of the EU turmoil but they definitely have raised several objections to many actions in the past 20 years against the US but continue to reap/demand the benefits from the results.

Originally posted by coquine
reply to post by hp1229

 

The french president is upset?? Wow, I didn't even hear about that! You got some links or something that show that?

A site which has for theme denying ignorance and not buying the propaganda , being discerning instead, why do you come here if you don't agree with that intent.....?
Of course you are not obligated to answer, it is just a question out of curiosity.

I was responding to the OP.

You should be asking the question and link to the person who started this thread.

I come here just to express my opinions (good or bad) just the way you do. Is that OK with you Sir?

Originally posted by billybobh3
reply to post by bluemirage5

 

I love it!!!

Wine sippin', cheese eatin' surrender monkeys!

I would love to see the results too

reply to post by coquine


Didn't you read my post on the 1st page? There is the answer why gates was mad about it. Or you just simply googling it up.

Originally posted by hp1229

I was responding to the OP.

You should be asking the question and link to the person who started this thread.

I come here just to express my opinions (good or bad) just the way you do. Is that OK with you Sir?

Oh. I thought you were bringing up something else, because the comments refered to in the OP do not denote any emotional upset at all.
Of course you can express your opinions here! But you might be more comfortable if you recognize that expressing ones opinions, also means others may question it, or express their own opinion about yours as well.
Just life, and it's not personal, and politicians know that too.

Originally posted by Paulioetc15
reply to post by coquine

 

Didn't you read my post on the 1st page? There is the answer why gates was mad about it. Or you just simply googling it up.

Okay, to be fair I went back and read your first page again.

Firstly, Gates being mad (and others comments about Sarcozy being upset in response) is just plain silly. These people are not children in a schoolyard. They are adults and politicians, and wouldn’t be where they are if they get emotional in debates, retoric, or normal political oppositions. Wasting energy on needless emotions and taking things personally is a form of entertainment only those with less responsibility can afford to partake in.

Now, my confusion here is about the « reluctance to exercise military might» which is not the same thing as « lacking in military might » . You point out that the US has more military might than France(making them dependant) , whereas Gates is asserting that they HAVE the same might and are simply choosing not to exercise it.
The difference is there- what one does and what they have. Sarcozy responds that they are putting in the effort they can according to what they have. America is putting in less than what they could according to what they have, which kind of puts them in a bad position to be criticising how much effort others are willing to exercise.

He did not criticisize their right to that reluctance, only that if you choose to stay out, and simultaneously criticize others for not being active enough in it, well, you are going to have that ball hit right back. I can’t imagine that Gates was surprised to have that happen.

Now, looking at the wider picture, I do get the discontent Americans may be feeling, because being a leader, in any context, having the most power, also means having the most responsibility. Power and responsibility are two sides of the same coin, and responsibility is tough to carry. Also leadership carries with it judgement by your followers upon every one of your decisions.
Leadership is NOT for the emotional, those who feel their ego easily bruised, or who do not want to carry that pressure. Even if one can handle it at first, sometimes a time comes when you just get worn down by it and sick of it and want someone else to step into the role.

This is the part the American public needs to consider rationally. Those who are very attached to the image of America in the eyes of others, and really wanting to stay in the position of world leader, number 1, would do themselves well to consider that as long as that is true, they will be under the spotlight of judgement from the rest of the world. More power will continue carrying more responsibility. (personally, I suspect the polititians understand this perfectly )

It might be time to consider that stepping out of the limelight and taking time to re-group and take care of their own internal state might be appropriate at this time, and that would mean being seen in the eyes of the rest of the world as less powerful, but would mean less scrutiny as well.

I see so often Americans filled with dread at the idea of becoming « average », mediocre, or "just like everyone else" (automatically means to them NWO). But consider that there are many nations of the world that have had their time of being powerful world leaders, and when they came down, they didn’t lose their identity ! England, Italy, and France have had their time of stretching their power across the globe, and yet still remain, undestroyed, with their own distinct identity and culture ! If China steps in as the next world power, and America steps down, it doesn’t mean total catastrophy !

But it would mean letting go of the huge ego and being more down to earth. Which is really all I advocate. Wasting the nations resources on going out and trying to prove they are powerful is draining, that is worth a groan or two. But then that is up to the US, and their ability to accept a little modesty at this point. Like saying "yes, in this case, in Libya, we have chosen to not lead the way and carry as much weight, that is true. "
That has so much more dignity.

Originally posted by coquine

Originally posted by hp1229

I was responding to the OP.

You should be asking the question and link to the person who started this thread.

I come here just to express my opinions (good or bad) just the way you do. Is that OK with you Sir?

Oh. I thought you were bringing up something else, because the comments refered to in the OP do not denote any emotional upset at all.
Of course you can express your opinions here! But you might be more comfortable if you recognize that expressing ones opinions, also means others may question it, or express their own opinion about yours as well.
Just life, and it's not personal, and politicians know that too.

Well Good then.

Thats the way it should be. It should be debatable and questionable. One simply cannot nod and agree to everything people throw out there or here on ATS

Who cares what the politicians think since they dont care how we feel for the most part (not all of them atleast).