CSMonitor: France may block NATO efforts in Darfur

As much as I hate French people this is really sort of natural for the French -- if there's anything to argue about, it seems like the French can't pass up the chance. If terrorists were about to nuke France, and there was a consensus in the UN to stop it, the French would feel the need to argue against involvement.

People have the mistaken impression, btw, that France is a complete member of NATO. They are a "political member" (I guess this means that they couldn't stand giving up their chance at a potential source of arguement.) but they play absolutely no military role in the alliance. They gave that up in the late 50's or early 60's.

 

Considering the intevention WAS NOT by definition unilateral, what are you talking about? Aside from that, what geostrategic consequences are you talking about? I'm most interested to hear from a horses ass, I mean a smart horse trader, exactly what dire consequences we've suffered as a result. Please do elaborate.

 

Do you understand the term "de facto"? I submit that you don't based on the above post. By the way I am still waiting for your gyrational damage evidence in another thread, you have had several hours now and I would think that somebody as close to the issue as you portray yourself would have some by now.

 

Do I really need too? Aren't there 900 million threads on this? Here's one example that jumped to mind, this is just the tip of the iceberg, in a huge ass field of icebergs, many of which hhave been cited countless times in the past.

 

That would sorta rule out NATO intervention except for the US, Canada and Turkey then.

 

Yes, but then you trip over yourself to actually label it unilateral in the next sentence. Or did I miss something?

Well I guess you haven't looked at that thread lately, cause my answer was there when you wrote this.

Go figure, a link that doesn't work, lol.

No, the EU doesn't have a military component. Its 'defacto' (just for you Sam) military component is NATO. While the EU wants to have a military component independent of NATO, its doesn't yet. As such, the main military organization capable of intervention in or from Europe, is NATO.

Save your breath. He'll either list things that are completely non unique to the Iraqi intervention (hey it caused a rise in anti-americanism), unquantifiable (it decreased our credibility), or counterfactually unprovable (we would have caught Osama by now). He can ramble all he wants about the 'obvious' consequences of the intervention, but he'd be hard pressed to show any ACTUAL impact to our 'geostrategic' position.

 

Like in all other important millitary NATO matters, member nations will use the Defense Planning Committee to carry out their plans. (France is not a member)

It's a non-issue to me as I already hate the French...

 

I have not heard that term in a while.

 

Because I was referring to it in the common sense - this is the sentence fragment that you are referring to:

"but it wasn't because Unilaterlity was or is morally wrong"

Was I not clear enough, or are you being deliberately an idiot to not take this to mean that I was referring to "unilaterality" (which I managed to misspell even though it is not even a real word) in general (or de facto unilaterality)? You seem to be running out of bullets early on in the debate if this is your avenue already.

It is the army war college report that has been linked to and quoted from on this site dozens of times which you have never been able to answer - just like were dumbfounded in the child gyration thread.

But don't take my word for it, download the pdf yourself
http://www.carlisle.army.mil/ssi/pubs/display.cfm?pubID=207&CFID=589989&CFTOKEN=70561019

No consequences at all, save for the ones that were on the front page of the newspaper on the day that you wrote this

Army says Iraq war limits ability to fight other conflicts

And you argue that these things don't exist, despite documented evidence to the contrary. I guess life as a used car salesman or the father of an 11 year old non-gyrator or whatever it is that you do leaves you well qualified to refute the consensus opinion of all authorities in the field. Maybe your "nonunique" talents are being wasted here - perhaps you can get Intelligent Design into textbooks or something.

 

But individual European Countries still have their own fully armed militaries. Your position is Europe can't act without NATO but lack of NATO support didn't keep the Brits from going to the Falklands, the French from going to the Ivory Coast.

The Europeans are capable of undertaking peace keeping missions themselves. That they don't usually has more to do with that they are lazy about committing their own resources and figure the US will take care of it or because they don't want to piss the US off by acting on their own.

 

In other words, you have no answer do you? You can't refute that Iraq has hamstrung our military, budget, credibilty, etc, ad nauseum - so it's pointless to go into it with you again when you've failed so much in the past. Anyway the report is there, and that's just a symptom.

 

The Christian Science Monitor. A bastion of impartiality.

Why don't they print stories about Pat Robertson's piece of the pie with diamond mines in Africa? His illicit telecom deals in China?

Not that a biased source can't be right, but still....

 

The CSM isn't a right wing source.

 

I think we're done here Jorge, the ball has been in your court for two years and I gave up on you way back before you started poring over maps of Cambodia and rewriting history. Ciao.

 

Wow. You don't look very good right now.