French Airstrikes in Mali

[Libertarian California]

So basically, a bunch of radical Islamists are stirring up trouble in Mali, seizing large tracts of land in northern Mali. These Islamists are begingin to push southwards. The French have gotten involved, in the form of airstrikes and by sending small numbers of ground troops. French President François Hollande was quoted saying the French operation "will last as long as necessary".

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/12/world/africa/mali-france/index.html?iref=allsearch

So, what do you all think of this? Are the French doing the right thing? Should they back off or increase their involvement? Could this escalate into a larger war? Will the United States get involved?


I would offer my own opinion on this, but to be honest, I really can't right now. I'm against overreaching interventionism, but this is an issue between France and Mali and I feel as if I'm really in no position to have a strong opinion on this issue. In fact, I only made this thread, because I found it interesting, and it seems that one hasn't been made yet.

[Divair]

I support it because the government requested help and it's fighting against religious militants, but we're in a recession and France should be focusing on economic recovery.


Neutral.

[Libertarian California]

I support it because the government requested help and it's fighting against religious militants, but we're in a recession and France should be focusing on economic recovery.


Neutral.

Should I add a poll?

[Divair]

I support it because the government requested help and it's fighting against religious militants, but we're in a recession and France should be focusing on economic recovery.


Neutral.

Should I add a poll?

Sure.

[Souseiseki]

I support it because the government requested help and it's fighting against religious militants, but we're in a recession and France should be focusing on economic recovery.


Neutral.

hmm... so they should help protect people against what will presumably be massive violations of their rights or focus on their cash money?

[Divair]

OP, can you allow us to change our vote and add a "Neutral" option?

[Libertarian California]

I support it because the government requested help and it's fighting against religious militants, but we're in a recession and France should be focusing on economic recovery.


Neutral.

hmm... so they should help protect people against what will presumably be massive violations of their rights or focus on their cash money?

He's got a point. I mean, the French most likely have their own problems to look after than say the problems of other countries. But on the other hand, the Malian government actually wants them to intervene, so...

[Libertarian California]

OP, can you allow us to change our vote and add a "Neutral" option?

Done.

[Divair]

I support it because the government requested help and it's fighting against religious militants, but we're in a recession and France should be focusing on economic recovery.


Neutral.

hmm... so they should help protect people against what will presumably be massive violations of their rights or focus on their cash money?

As hard as it is to imagine, sometimes you need to focus on the economic well-being of your own people before others.

[Libertarian California]

hmm... so they should help protect people against what will presumably be massive violations of their rights or focus on their cash money?

As hard as it is to imagine, sometimes you need to focus on the economic well-being of your own people before others.

This. Once they get their house in order, then they may be in a position to worry about the houses of others. Same goes for almost every country.

[OMGeverynameistaken]

I really hope the United States doesn't get involved outside of purely logistical support. If we spend another 6 years in Mali, we'll have kids graduating from high school who have never known their country at peace. From a philosophical point of view, that seems rather sad to me.

From a practical point of view, the US needs to pause and get its breath. We can't handle another protracted guerrilla war while supporting our puppets in Baghdad and Kabul.

[Divair]

OP, can you allow us to change our vote and add a "Neutral" option?

Done.

Thank you.

[Mike the Progressive]

hmm... so they should help protect people against what will presumably be massive violations of their rights or focus on their cash money?

He's got a point. I mean, the French most likely have their own problems to look after than say the problems of other countries. But on the other hand, the Malian government actually wants them to intervene, so...

The problem is during times of recessions, countries can't just abruptly stop their foreign commitments.

[Divair]

He's got a point. I mean, the French most likely have their own problems to look after than say the problems of other countries. But on the other hand, the Malian government actually wants them to intervene, so...

The problem is during times of recessions, countries can't just abruptly stop their foreign commitments.

Is this not a new commitment?

[Lunatic Goofballs]

My interest in the actions of France and Mali are in the vicinity of zero.

[Libertarian California]

He's got a point. I mean, the French most likely have their own problems to look after than say the problems of other countries. But on the other hand, the Malian government actually wants them to intervene, so...

The problem is during times of recessions, countries can't just abruptly stop their foreign commitments.

Some of these "commitments" are rather pointless to begin with.

[Libertarian California]

My interest in the actions of France and Mali are in the vicinity of zero.

I'm not calling you out, but when the French airstrike Mali, people don't care, but when the Americans do it (Bosnia, Libya, etc), it's a big fucking deal. Why is this?

[Divair]

My interest in the actions of France and Mali are in the vicinity of zero.

I'm not calling you out, but when the French airstrike Mali, people don't care, but when the Americans do it (Bosnia, Libya, etc), it's a big fucking deal. Why is this?

'MURICA

[Vitaphone Racing]

I support it because the government requested help and it's fighting against religious militants, but we're in a recession and France should be focusing on economic recovery.


Neutral.

France has a sizeable defence industry. Every deployment puts money back into the economy. The military does not travel lightly.

Also.

I support it because the government requested help and it's fighting against religious militants, but we're in a recession and France should be focusing on economic recovery.


Neutral.

hmm... so they should help protect people against what will presumably be massive violations of their rights or focus on their cash money?

Rarely do I agree with Souseiseki, but this.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

My interest in the actions of France and Mali are in the vicinity of zero.

I'm not calling you out, but when the French airstrike Mali, people don't care, but when the Americans do it (Bosnia, Libya, etc), it's a big fucking deal. Why is this?

Because we shouldn't be doing it.

[Divair]

France has a sizeable defence industry. Every deployment puts money back into the economy. The military does not travel lightly.

Also.

I am of the opinion that while the defense industry does contribute to the economy, it's not the right type of contribution, and other investments (like the ESA or infrastructure) are far more valuable.

[Mike the Progressive]

The problem is during times of recessions, countries can't just abruptly stop their foreign commitments.

Is this not a new commitment?

Or any commitment. If Mali expects help from France, and France intends to help, there is some reasonable expectation beforehand. My point being a nation can't just stop what it's doing because the economy is not doing well.

[Souseiseki]

I'm not calling you out, but when the French airstrike Mali, people don't care, but when the Americans do it (Bosnia, Libya, etc), it's a big fucking deal. Why is this?

because people hate america!!!

as far as i can tell people didn't seem to care much about libya, tbh. if you meant in the "oh they're so terrible and evil for doing this" sense. it's possible the anglosphere cares more about american actions for reasons that are incredibly obvious.

also i imagine that, again, in our magical bubble of english, gaddafi was in the news a lot more over the years than, uh...

[Libertarian California]

I'm not calling you out, but when the French airstrike Mali, people don't care, but when the Americans do it (Bosnia, Libya, etc), it's a big fucking deal. Why is this?

Because we shouldn't be doing it.

I agree, I oppose our intervention in other nations. I just don't understand why no one is calling out the French for things we got called out for.

[Divair]

Is this not a new commitment?

Or any commitment. If Mali expects help from France, and France intends to help, there is some reasonable expectation beforehand. My point being a nation can't just stop what it's doing because the economy is not doing well.

So if there's an expectation, it's their duty, even during a recession?