PDA

View Full Version : Int'l Issues French making toast in libya


Count Zarth
03-19-2011, 10:01 AM
Fraaaaaaaaaaaaaaaance fuck yeah!

RIS -- Top officials from the United States, Europe and the Arab world have launched immediate military action to protect civilians as Libyan leader Muammar al-Qaddafi's forces attacked the heart of the country's rebel uprising.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy said after an emergency summit in Paris on Saturday that French warplanes are already targeting Qaddafi's forces.

The 22 participants in Saturday's summit "agreed to put in place all the means necessary, in particular military" to make Qaddafi respect a U.N. Security Council resolution Thursday demanding a cease-fire, Sarkozy said.

"Our planes are blocking the air attacks on the city" of Benghazi, he said, without elaborating. French planes have been readying for an attack in recent days.

Earlier Saturday, Libyan government troops forces stormed into the rebel capital of Benghazi, apparently ignoring a proclaimed cease-fire and potentially complicating any allied military action.

British Prime Minister David Cameron said after the summit: "The time for action has come, it needs to be urgent."

France, Britain and the United States had warned Qaddafi Friday that they would resort to military means if he ignored the U.N. resolution.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was also at Saturday's summit.

A communique from the summit participants, referring to the U.N. Security Council resolution, said: "Our commitment is for the long term: we will not let Colonel Qaddafi and his regime go on defying the will of the international community and scorning that of his people.

"We will continue our aid to the Libyans so that they can rebuild their country, fully respecting Libya's sovereignty and territorial integrity."

OUI!!!!

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/03/19/hrzgal.14.gi.jpg

Count Zarth
03-19-2011, 10:06 AM
3:12pm

Six Danish F-16 fighter jets have landed at the US naval air station in Sigonella, Sicily, Lars Skjoldan, a Danish air force spokesman, says. Norway will also be contributing six F-16's to an international military effort in Libya, in line with UN resolution 1973.

:bang:

BucEyedPea
03-19-2011, 10:31 AM
"We will continue our aid to the Libyans so that they can rebuild their country, fully respecting Libya's sovereignty and territorial integrity."
Until they step out of bounds....then global governance will act again.

KC Dan
03-19-2011, 10:51 AM
After watching Obama's speech in Brazil and Clinton's speech/question answering in Paris, Who is the real President of the United States?

Count Zarth
03-19-2011, 11:04 AM
Guess that's a rebel plane.

:(

Chiefshrink
03-19-2011, 11:50 AM
Sarkozy far bigger "NADS" than Obama!!

BucEyedPea
03-19-2011, 12:32 PM
Sarkozy far bigger "NADS" than Obama!!

Yeah, it's called an act of war on a nation that didn't aggress against another nation. Some NADS!

This violates the UN's own Charter because Article 2 calls for the "sovereign equality of all its Members" and Libya is a member. It says: "Nothing in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state..." Libya is in a civil war against a leader that took power by overthrowing the Libyan monarchy. This is just more of the same in that country.

Think of what such things mean as it slowly shapes toward a world govt. It means more centralized power being exercised over people—the same way the state's have been destroyed in the US. Beware the international "do-gooders."

alnorth
03-19-2011, 01:45 PM
Sarkozy far bigger "NADS" than Obama!!

Why should the US lead this?

Bewbies
03-19-2011, 02:56 PM
Yeah, it's called an act of war on a nation that didn't aggress against another nation. Some NADS!

This violates the UN's own Charter because Article 2 calls for the "sovereign equality of all its Members" and Libya is a member. It says: "Nothing in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state..." Libya is in a civil war against a leader that took power by overthrowing the Libyan monarchy. This is just more of the same in that country.

Think of what such things mean as it slowly shapes toward a world govt. It means more centralized power being exercised over people—the same way the state's have been destroyed in the US. Beware the international "do-gooders."

Who cares what the UN's charters are? They're corrupt and an organization that needs to be put out to pasture. :thumb:

Count Zarth
03-19-2011, 04:08 PM
Think of what such things mean as it slowly shapes toward a world govt. It means more centralized power being exercised over people—the same way the state's have been destroyed in the US. Beware the international "do-gooders."

A world government is exactly what we need.

This owns.

Count Zarth
03-19-2011, 04:19 PM
This is going to Libya. Fuck yeah.

http://blogs.aljazeera.net/sites/default/files/imagecache/FeaturedImagePost/images/Aircraft%20Carrier.jpg

SNR
03-19-2011, 04:21 PM
Probably because they feel guilty for all those years of colonization in northern Africa

Frankie
03-19-2011, 04:26 PM
A world government is exactly what we need.

This owns.

Like it or not, I think the world will find a need to go in that direction. Either that or destruction. Won't be in our lifetime, but it will eventually be.

Frankie
03-19-2011, 04:27 PM
Sarkozy far bigger "NADS" than Obama!!

Actually, with two wars to manage, it's interesting that we can step back and leave policing the world to other allies.

BigMeatballDave
03-19-2011, 04:28 PM
3:12pm

Six Danish F-16 fighter jets have landed at the US naval air station in Sigonella, Sicily, Lars Skjoldan, a Danish air force spokesman, says. Norway will also be contributing six F-16's to an international military effort in Libya, in line with UN resolution 1973.

:bang:Norway has fight jets?

HonestChieffan
03-19-2011, 05:12 PM
Like it or not, I think the world will find a need to go in that direction. Either that or destruction. Won't be in our lifetime, but it will eventually be.

The last time we saw a Allied effort that had a singular purpose was WW2. A common enemy that posed a common threat. Any idea who may be that common threat next time?

Frankie
03-19-2011, 05:28 PM
The last time we saw a Allied effort that had a singular purpose was WW2. A common enemy that posed a common threat. Any idea who may be that common threat next time?

yep. Your paranoia and those who keep posting paranoid stuff like you.

HonestChieffan
03-19-2011, 05:51 PM
yep. Your paranoia and those who keep posting paranoid stuff like you.

Paranoid stuff?

alnorth
03-19-2011, 10:58 PM
A world government is exactly what we need.

This owns.

hypothetically speaking, after a theocracy takes over this world government and they pass a world law saying that all atheists are infidels who should be shot, what do you do then? Do you just say "oh well", and line up against the wall to be shot?

Or maybe we don't even have to go that far. Some countries are extremely poor, some are wealthy. Some wealthy countries are socialist and feel guilty about it all. Not hard for me to imagine a world income tax, which hits us particularly hard (say 60-70% of all your income is taxed) in order to give a bunch of money to poor nations.

National sovereignty is not something to be given up lightly. I'm not necessarily against humanitarian missions under any circumstance, but saying we need a world government, given that our culture may be radically different from "our master's" culture, is just stupid.

Count Zarth
03-19-2011, 11:02 PM
ROFL

Your hypothetical scenario is absurd. Theocratic governments are a dying breed.

Furthermore, I'm not atheist.

Frankie
03-19-2011, 11:05 PM
Theocratic governments are a dying breed.

I agree with that. As they die down though, it is sad that there are forces in this very country, who want to take us there.

alnorth
03-19-2011, 11:06 PM
ROFL

Your hypothetical scenario is absurd. Theocratic governments are a dying breed.

Furthermore, I'm not atheist.

A world government needs a world tax, doesn't it?

Your idealism is absurd.

Count Zarth
03-19-2011, 11:07 PM
The problem most people have with a world government is they try to take traditional government practices and apply them to a global entity.

It will be completely different.

alnorth
03-19-2011, 11:08 PM
Furthermore, I'm not atheist.

For some reason I thought you gave up fairy tales and superstition. Apparently not.

Count Zarth
03-19-2011, 11:09 PM
For some reason I thought you gave up fairy tales and superstition. Apparently not.

You don't have to be atheist to recognize the bible for bullshit.

Dave Lane
03-19-2011, 11:09 PM
I do think religion is dying. I think even the religious sense it, they can feel the creep and the passing of the old ways. They know they are losing and science and enlightenment will triumph in the end, I firmly believe that.

MagicHef
03-19-2011, 11:11 PM
The last time we saw a Allied effort that had a singular purpose was WW2. A common enemy that posed a common threat. Any idea who may be that common threat next time?

Aliens.

BucEyedPea
03-19-2011, 11:12 PM
I do hope religion is dying. I think even the religious sense it, they can feel the creep and the passing of the old ways. They know they are losing and science and enlightenment will triumph in the end, I firmly believe that.

FYP

Actually, it's the fundamentalist brands of faith that are growing in leaps and bounds.

alnorth
03-19-2011, 11:14 PM
The problem most people have with a world government is they try to take traditional government practices and apply them to a global entity.

It will be completely different.

I also imagine one of the first things to go would be our opting out of these popular and idiotic cap-and-trade carbon tax schemes, which is nothing more than a massive world tax in disguise.

A world government is a stupid, stupid idea in the sense that our politics and culture is very different from the rest of the world in ways you'd probably prefer to remain different. We wouldn't have control over this hypothetical world government, and would lose a lot of freedoms.

For another thing, our freedom of speech is far more broad and far more solid than anything seen in most of the world, including Europe. Few other countries put up with this first amendment nonsense. Something would "have to be done" about that annoying american media stirring up rebellion and unrest among the world citizens against the benevolent world government. They will probably have to be "neutralized" and replaced with responsible journalists who are more sensible.

Count Zarth
03-19-2011, 11:15 PM
Religion is dying. Accept it. In 50 years, religious people will be seen as freaks.

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/christians_1.png

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_PEXSM0sC-Zg/TIi3bjp3USI/AAAAAAAAApA/uRBViPTyEV4/s1600/Catholic+Church+Attendance.jpg

BucEyedPea
03-19-2011, 11:18 PM
The problem most people have with a world government is they try to take traditional government practices and apply them to a global entity.

It will be completely different.

World govt, long the goal of certain people throughout history going back to ancient times with the Tower of Babel, will NEVER work. People are just too different and don't think alike enough.

If centralizing too much power corrupts and doesn't work at the nation-state level, imagine what tyranny and corruption at a world level will do. it would be massive and overbearing.
There wouldn't be any other institution to get rid of it either. Any tyranny will be far worse. So it will never work, because local govt works better being closer to the people and reflects the values of the locals. If you say, even people don't get along then, I would agree because people are never going to agree on everything. Hence different cultures with different systems if better. If you put it all under one govt those disagreements and tensions etc. will be exaggerated on a global scale. Unless you create one world govt that is so totalitarian you just suppress it all like it was done under the Soviets. If you see utopia than you need to suppress everyone to pull it off. This is the problem with progressives.

Nope World Govt won't work and is not an answer. The answer is less govt.

Frankie
03-19-2011, 11:18 PM
A world government needs a world tax, doesn't it?

Your idealism is absurd.

Hey man, There's a world government in our future, according to Star Trek.

Right Clay?

Frankie
03-19-2011, 11:20 PM
You don't have to be atheist to recognize the bible for bullshit.

I do agree with this take. I believe in God, but think the God depicted in the old testament is man-made.

Frankie
03-19-2011, 11:23 PM
I do think religion is dying. I think even the religious sense it, they can feel the creep and the passing of the old ways. They know they are losing and science and enlightenment will triumph in the end, I firmly believe that.

Look, anything that tells us not to betray, cheat, steal, murder, etc. is not all bad. My problem is when religion goes beyond those teachings AND with vague language leaving it totally at the mercy of idiots' interpretations.

Frankie
03-19-2011, 11:25 PM
FYP

Actually, it's the fundamentalist brands of faith that are growing in leaps and bounds.

Good catch, Madam.

Frankie
03-19-2011, 11:27 PM
World govt, long the goal of certain people throughout history going back to ancient times with the Tower of Babel, will NEVER work. People are just too different and don't think alike enough.

That also describes Texas and.... the rest of the country.

BucEyedPea
03-19-2011, 11:39 PM
That also describes Texas and.... the rest of the country.

Yes. Another reason why I argue for less centralization and less govt inside our country too.

Frankie
03-19-2011, 11:46 PM
Yes. Another reason why I argue for less centralization and less govt inside our country too.

But that will eventually make the United States go the way of the Soviet Union.

BucEyedPea
03-20-2011, 08:01 AM
But that will eventually make the United States go the way of the Soviet Union.

That's only if you don't find the right balance. I am arguing for our original federalism under the original Constitution.
That was the right balance give or take a few amendments. Ya' know certain powers to the federal govt and most left to others.
World govt is the penultimate extreme which is a tyranny. Plus there's no way to get rid of it.

Now may I ask just what was wrong with the Soviet Union breaking up? Why was that a bad thing? I seem to recall it being cheered because the Soviet Union was an example of the other extreme. It was put together by conquest.

Frankie
03-20-2011, 10:41 PM
That's only if you don't find the right balance.Is it possible to find the right balance? In this world of extremes, it seems it's either black or white.

World govt is the penultimate extreme which is a tyranny. Plus there's no way to get rid of it. I agree that would be a concern.

Now may I ask just what was wrong with the Soviet Union breaking up? Why was that a bad thing? I seem to recall it being cheered because the Soviet Union was an example of the other extreme. It was put together by conquest.

There was absolutely nothing wrong with the USSR breaking up. Exactly because of the second part in your post that I highlighted. But I think the U.S. is a different type of union whose break up would not be good.

FishingRod
03-21-2011, 12:25 PM
Guess that's a rebel plane.

:(

Looks "I think" like a Mig-23. The French might be all gung-ho for this because it will give them an opportunity to use the Rafale to beat up on some old Soviet Era gear. They have a boatload of money in the Rafael and it has been a dismal failure with no export sales to date.