27848
Post by: ChrisWWII
This just in. The BBC reports that France has officially recognized the rebel government in Benghazi as the 'legitimate government of Libya.'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12699183
BBC wrote:France has become the first country to recognise the Libyan rebel leadership, the National Libyan Council (NLC), as the country's legitimate government.
But other members of the European Union held back, with a spokesman for the EU's foreign affairs chief warning against "rushing" into decisions.
In another development, the Gaddafi government said a captured Dutch helicopter crew was being handed over.
Nato chiefs have also been meeting in Brussels to discuss Libya.
Separately, a search was under way in Libya for a missing reporter for the UK's Guardian newspaper, Ghaith Abdul-Ahad.
The award-winning Iraqi journalist entered the country from Tunisia and was last in touch with the paper through a third party on Sunday, when he was on the outskirts of Zawiya, which saw heavy fighting in recent days.
'Unilateral rush'
The office of French President Nicolas Sarkozy said Paris regarded the NLC as Libya's "legitimate representative".
Mustafa Gheriani, a representative for the rebels in their eastern stronghold of Benghazi, said he expected other EU members to follow suit.
But a spokesman for the EU foreign affairs chief, Baroness Ashton, said: "We cannot unilaterally rush into recognising groups."
The foreign ministers of Italy and Spain emphasised the need for the EU to act with one voice.
"Italy wants a European decision that everyone shares unanimously because that's how we act credibly," Italy's Franco Frattini said.
Spain's Trinidad Jimenez said: "The possibility of this recognition must be the result of agreement among all of the countries of the European Union."
President Sarkozy's decision did find support in the European Parliament where MEPs adopted a resolution calling on the EU as a whole to recognise formally Libya's opposition as the only legitimate authority.
After meeting Nato defence ministers in Brussels, Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said the alliance planned to move more ships to the Mediterranean but more discussion was needed on a possible no-fly zone.
"We considered... initial options regarding a possible no-fly zone in case Nato were to receive a clear UN mandate," he said.
"Ministers agreed that further planning will be required."
Dutch captives
Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, the Libyan leader's most prominent son, said the three-strong crew of a Dutch navy helicopter who were captured on 27 February during a botched evacuation mission near Sirte would be released but their helicopter would stay in Libya.
"Today we are going to hand over the Dutch soldiers to the Maltese and Greeks," he told Reuters news agency on Thursday.
"We told them, don't come back again without our permission. We captured the first Nato soldiers, we are sending them back home. But we are still keeping their helicopter."
Dutch defence and foreign ministry officials could not immediately comment.
Over the past few days, top officials from the Dutch government travelled to the Mediterranean and held secret negotiations with Col Gaddafi's government on freeing the crew, Radio Netherlands Worldwide reports.
The Dutch ambassador to Libya recently visited the crew and reported that they were in good condition.
752
Post by: Polonius
If they wake Lafayette up, Gadhaffi will need to really be scared.
35785
Post by: Avatar 720
They're keeping the helicopter? Why?
"You can go now."
"Can we have our helicopter?"
"No. Is mine now. Thank you for present. Bye-bye."
34151
Post by: Bakerofish
why do i get the feeling that France "Leeroy Jenkins"'d that decision...
12061
Post by: halonachos
Damn it France, if they start another Vietnam so help me...
15667
Post by: Emperors Faithful
Bakerofish wrote:why do i get the feeling that France "Leeroy Jenkins"'d that decision...
Hehehe. Though that would imply the rest of Europe actually had some sort of plan in place.
halonachos wrote:Damn it France, if they start another Vietnam so help me...
Hope this was a joke and not a reflection on your education.
34151
Post by: Bakerofish
hasnt Europes plan always been:
"lets see what they do and jump in when its over"?
at least ever since the "take over the world" plan didnt pan out
i kid i kid...
but really though, kinda bad form for a "union" if one member keeps grandstanding like that.
34168
Post by: Amaya
Bakerofish wrote:hasnt Europes plan always been:
"lets see what they do and jump in when its over"?
at least ever since the "take over the world" plan didnt pan out
i kid i kid...
but really though, kinda bad form for a "union" if one member keeps grandstanding like that.
Europe kinda did take over the world for a bit...
34151
Post by: Bakerofish
... i kinda know about that *looks at flag*
15667
Post by: Emperors Faithful
Amaya wrote:Bakerofish wrote:hasnt Europes plan always been:
"lets see what they do and jump in when its over"?
at least ever since the "take over the world" plan didnt pan out
i kid i kid...
but really though, kinda bad form for a "union" if one member keeps grandstanding like that.
Europe kinda did take over the world for a bit...
Oh, it was ever so fun!
11029
Post by: Ketara
Why should we need a unilateral European decision? The EU is a economic entity, not a political one. And I oppose any attempts to make it into one.
We'll recognise whichever government we want to recognise, and it will be the one that's best in our interests. I couldn't care less what Poland or Portugal make of the whole affair. They have (or should have) no impact on our foreign policy with Libya.
34151
Post by: Bakerofish
@ketara
*shrugs* seems like the political reasons to do so may have enough of an economic impact to have the EU foreign affairs chief speak up anyway
5470
Post by: sebster
Bakerofish wrote:@ketara
*shrugs* seems like the political reasons to do so may have enough of an economic impact to have the EU foreign affairs chief speak up anyway
It doesn't really work that way.
Anyway, this just adds to my idea that the world has been waiting before helping the rebels because they've been trying to figure out if they're the sort of people that we really want to be helping. All sorts of groups can start a revolution and not that many of them are better than tyrants.
It seems France has decided they like these folk. I wonder who'll follow in the next few days.
34151
Post by: Bakerofish
as long as it doesnt devolve into petty squabbling between the EU then it should be alright
France's decision isnt surprising though. They really didnt have a good relationship during Gaddafi's run. Maybe they're looking to set a good impression for the new guys
5394
Post by: reds8n
Ketara wrote:Why should we need a unilateral European decision? The EU is a economic entity, not a political one. And I oppose any attempts to make it into one.
eeerrr. Are you perhaps getting confused here with the EEC which was an economic entity. The EU, especially post Maastrich, most certainly is a political entity.
I guess one could argue that whilst the "pillars" idea was in effect it was at least mainly economics absed, but surely Lisbon removed any and all pretense of this ?
11029
Post by: Ketara
reds8n wrote:Ketara wrote:Why should we need a unilateral European decision? The EU is a economic entity, not a political one. And I oppose any attempts to make it into one.
eeerrr. Are you perhaps getting confused here with the EEC which was an economic entity. The EU, especially post Maastrich, most certainly is a political entity.
I guess one could argue that whilst the "pillars" idea was in effect it was at least mainly economics absed, but surely Lisbon removed any and all pretense of this ?
I'm fully aware it IS a political entity, but I like to pretend it isn't, and that we still retain some control over our own foreign policy and judiciary. 
5394
Post by: reds8n
Ah, gotcha.
My faith in the Uk educational system is restored.
10414
Post by: Big P
I suspect its France trying to make up for the political mess it made over the uprisings in Tunisia...
20018
Post by: Hyenajoe
Big P wrote:I suspect its France trying to make up for the political mess it made over the uprisings in Tunisia...
Spoilers!!! 
221
Post by: Frazzled
Emperors Faithful wrote:Hope this was a joke and not a reflection on your education.
Wow that violates Rule #1. Maybe I should ban you EF, pre your views on the DCM?
27848
Post by: ChrisWWII
halonachos wrote:Damn it France, if they start another Vietnam so help me...
Well, they haven't gotten involved, so it won't be another Vietnam.
As for the EU, as I understand it, it's much more like the US under the Articles of Confederation more than anything else, with the various political components remaining relatively sovereign in respects to each other, while still having alot of cooperation.
10414
Post by: Big P
ChrisWWII wrote:halonachos wrote:Damn it France, if they start another Vietnam so help me...
Well, they haven't gotten involved, so it won't be another Vietnam.
Why the fascination with Indochina (which is the correct term for the French colonial war that took place from 1945 till 1954, not the Vietnam War)? I fail to see how a war against a communist insurgency is anything like supporting a nationalist insurgency against a dictatorship or what is in effect, a civil war.
I wonder why you dont liken it to the French war in Algeria, seeing as that is in North Africa and was a fight against an insurgency... At least thats the right continet and the French have 'form'. Still nothing like the present civil war.
241
Post by: Ahtman
Big P wrote:Why the fascination with Indochina (which is the correct term for the French colonial war that took place from 1945 till 1954, not the Vietnam War)?
I don't think he was calling the French governments adventures there the Vietnam War, but referencing that it was in essence the prelude to the (USA's) Vietnam Conflict. Not a good conflict for morale purposes, but we've gotten some great movies out of it.
10356
Post by: Bran Dawri
Frazzled wrote:Emperors Faithful wrote:Hope this was a joke and not a reflection on your education.
Wow that violates Rule #1. Maybe I should ban you EF, pre your views on the DCM?
Do not be uncautious when confronted by a wrinkly old smiling bald man? How?
I kid, I kid. Anyway, it's only a matter of time before everyone else follows suit, methinks.
12061
Post by: halonachos
Emperors Faithful wrote:
halonachos wrote:Damn it France, if they start another Vietnam so help me...
Hope this was a joke and not a reflection on your education.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Dien_Bien_Phu 
Good stuff, the French usually mess things up who would've figured?
15667
Post by: Emperors Faithful
Frazzled wrote:Emperors Faithful wrote:Hope this was a joke and not a reflection on your education.
Wow that violates Rule #1. Maybe I should ban you EF, pre your views on the DCM?
I don't know, maybe you should support those making jokes in that Japan Earthquake thread?
halonachos wrote:Emperors Faithful wrote:
halonachos wrote:Damn it France, if they start another Vietnam so help me...
Hope this was a joke and not a reflection on your education.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Dien_Bien_Phu
Good stuff, the French usually mess things up who would've figured?
Right, becuase there Libya is currently a colony of France and there are French forces stationed there. Oh, and the Communists are behind everything.
11029
Post by: Ketara
Emperors Faithful wrote:
Right, becuase there Libya is currently a colony of France and there are French forces stationed there. Oh, and the Communists are behind everything.
Wut?
Your post makes no sense.
15667
Post by: Emperors Faithful
Ketara wrote:Emperors Faithful wrote:
Right, becuase there Libya is currently a colony of France and there are French forces stationed there. Oh, and the Communists are behind everything.
Wut?
Your post makes no sense.
I know. The US can't blame Vietnam on the French. Not entirely. And this pretty much has nothing to do with Libya.
27848
Post by: ChrisWWII
I think we can agree that the situatino in Libya has next to no ties to what happened in Vietnam/Indochina leading up to US involvement in a 'police action' known colloquially as the Vietnam War.
11029
Post by: Ketara
Emperors Faithful wrote:Ketara wrote:Emperors Faithful wrote:
Right, becuase there Libya is currently a colony of France and there are French forces stationed there. Oh, and the Communists are behind everything.
Wut?
Your post makes no sense.
I know. The US can't blame Vietnam on the French. Not entirely. And this pretty much has nothing to do with Libya.
I don't know anything about that. I didn't understand your post grammatically. I couldn't even infer what you were trying to say.
Me writing:- 'Jelly bonanza is roughly circumference of Chaos black in a holistic approach', made about as much sense as that post did.
15667
Post by: Emperors Faithful
Emperors Faithful wrote:
Right, becuase there Libya is currently a colony of France and there are French forces stationed there. Oh, and the Communists are behind everything.
That better?
39004
Post by: biccat
Ketara wrote:I don't know anything about that. I didn't understand your post grammatically. I couldn't even infer what you were trying to say.
Me writing:- 'Jelly bonanza is roughly circumference of Chaos black in a holistic approach', made about as much sense as that post did.
Colorless green ideas sleep furiously?
12061
Post by: halonachos
Emperors Faithful wrote:Ketara wrote:Emperors Faithful wrote:
Right, becuase there Libya is currently a colony of France and there are French forces stationed there. Oh, and the Communists are behind everything.
Wut?
Your post makes no sense.
I know. The US can't blame Vietnam on the French. Not entirely. And this pretty much has nothing to do with Libya.
France screwed up politically and war occured because of that. There doesn't have to be communists, just two sides fighting for control and France has legitimized the rebels which might as well split Libya into east and west. If america ends up carrying out another 'police action' I'll blame France. If you notice Libya is actually split between middle eastern populations and african populations, they have political borders created by Italy IIRC. We have areas that are in the same country but have no similarities besides that.
15667
Post by: Emperors Faithful
halonachos wrote:
France screwed up politically and war occured because of that. There doesn't have to be communists, just two sides fighting for control and France has legitimized the rebels which might as well split Libya into east and west. If america ends up carrying out another 'police action' I'll blame France. If you notice Libya is actually split between middle eastern populations and african populations, they have political borders created by Italy IIRC. We have areas that are in the same country but have no similarities besides that.
The French involvement in Indochina was an attempt to recover their Colonial holdings lost during the WWII occupation. The US supported the French (paying for most of the operation costs) becuase they needed the support of France in the European theatre given the onset of the Cold War. It's a bit more complicated than this, but already you should be able to see that this is in no way comparable to the current situation in Libya. But yeah, keep on (French) hating.
12061
Post by: halonachos
If we end up supporting France then it will kind of be like how Vietnam started. It doesn't matter if France was trying to get a colony back because the basics go like this;
France did something political, the country didn't like that politcal move, France tried something militarily, France failed, America came to help France.
France has already done something politically(recognizing the rebels), Libya probably isn't too happy about that, we just need to see if France tries something and fails.
France is the Leeroy Jenkins of Europe.
963
Post by: Mannahnin
I don't think the parallels between Libya and Indochina are worth even mentioning, they're so tenuous and stretched. The situations are not realistically comparable.
12061
Post by: halonachos
Ones a desert without communism and the other one is a jungle with communism, got it.
27848
Post by: ChrisWWII
halonachos wrote:Ones a desert without communism and the other one is a jungle with communism, got it.
Well no, one is a jungle that was owned by France, and posessed a pro-communist independence movement. France didn't want to leave, and as such turned to its allies for additional assistance. However, after they were forced out of the territory by a defeat at one of their main bases, the United States stepped in to support the pro-Western elements within the nation.
In Libya's case, we've got a sovereign nation split by a civil war, and France has supported one of the factions.
The situations are not comparable in the slightest. The only connection is that France was involved with both.
29194
Post by: Luco
I don't understand the 'we must act united if we're to be taken seriously' aspect. Perhaps its just me but if Britain or Germany does something it doesn't really matter if the others act in unison with them, its still a force to be reckoned with. Its not like the US not being taken seriously if Oregon declared war on something and the rest of us just look at them a little funny... or is it?
5534
Post by: dogma
halonachos wrote:
France did something political, the country didn't like that politcal move, France tried something militarily, France failed, America came to help France.
You do realize that French Indochina came to be called French Indochina by way of military action, right?
You're betraying your ignorance of world history here.
You're also ignoring the fact that Libya isn't connected to a larger political movement, and power structure in the way that Vietnam was with respect to global Communism in general, and China in particular. That alone means that this situation is not comparable to Vietnam.
12061
Post by: halonachos
ChrisWWII wrote:halonachos wrote:Ones a desert without communism and the other one is a jungle with communism, got it.
Well no, one is a jungle that was owned by France, and posessed a pro-communist independence movement. France didn't want to leave, and as such turned to its allies for additional assistance. However, after they were forced out of the territory by a defeat at one of their main bases, the United States stepped in to support the pro-Western elements within the nation.
In Libya's case, we've got a sovereign nation split by a civil war, and France has supported one of the factions.
The situations are not comparable in the slightest. The only connection is that France was involved with both.
And the fact that France messed up politically(by not giving Vietnam sovereignty).
Dogma, do you always have to resort to personal attacks? Can you not even try to see past your own thoughts to see the idea behind my concept? I'm making a simple comparison and everyone else is telling me I'm wrong because there's no communists in Libya. I'm getting past the whole communist revolution part of Vietnam. There are parts where the two are dissimilar, but saying that the fact of the presence of communism is the only thing that keeps you from allowing a comparison between the two situations is like saying WW1 and WW2 are not similar because one of them lacked the NAZI movement.
France failed to keep the peace politically in Vietnam and continued to fail at keeping the peace so much that America joined in.
There's no peace in Libya, France made a political move by declaring the rebels as the new government creating a situation similar to Vietnam. Even though one side isn't communist we have a civil war going on between two ideological groups (rebels=Southern Vietnam, loyalists=Northern Vietnam) and it does involve regime change. France has involved the European community and the western world in the conflict now by making this declaration. Now if France takes military action to aid one side (the rebels) and exacerbates the situation we may have to step in to help them. If we get into a protracted war because of the aid we provide I would say that it is like Vietnam. Just because Vietnam was in Indochina and involved communism doesn't mean a war in Libya cannot be similar to it.
5534
Post by: dogma
halonachos wrote:
Dogma, do you always have to resort to personal attacks? Can you not even try to see past your own thoughts to see the idea behind my concept?
There is no"idea behind your concept" (which is itself a nonsensical comment given that "idea" and "concept" are synonymous) other than a set of "similarities" that you're fabricating. This is why I said that you were betraying your ignorance of world history. A statement that, from my perspective, is not a personal attack, but a clear statement of fact.
halonachos wrote:
I'm making a simple comparison and everyone else is telling me I'm wrong because there's no communists in Libya.
No, that's not what is happening. I, among others, have been explaining to you why the situation in Libya has nothing in common with the situation in Vietnam aside from the fact that both involved the French. This isn't a matter of perspective or opinion, its literally just a matter of you being fundamentally incorrect.
halonachos wrote:
There are parts where the two are dissimilar, but saying that the fact of the presence of communism is the only thing that keeps you from allowing a comparison between the two situations is like saying WW1 and WW2 are not similar because one of them lacked the NAZI movement.
That isn't what I said. Please read the posts that you're going to take offense to.
halonachos wrote:
France failed to keep the peace politically in Vietnam and continued to fail at keeping the peace so much that America joined in.
There's no peace in Libya, France made a political move by declaring the rebels as the new government creating a situation similar to Vietnam.
No, that's utter nonsense. The fact that you can even claim to believe this is mind-boggling to me.
There are no French troops in Libya. Libya is not a French colony. The Libyan rebellion is not attempting to oust the French from their territory. There is no over-arching ideological construct supporting the Libyan government. There is no large benefactor state feeding the Libyan government arms. The only similarity between the two conflicts is that, in both cases, a country that we call France was, and is, involved.
12061
Post by: halonachos
So the fact that France is involved is something we agree to.
But you're saying that Libya is lacking in ideological sides?
Libya isn't a French colony so of course it can't be related to Vietnam.
No one's giving Libya weapons so it can't be similar.
The similarities include the political actions of France. This political action that caused the rest of the Western world to become involved in the affairs of another country.
There doesn't have to be another benefactor giving the Libyan government money and Libya doesn't have to be a French colony to acknowledge the fact that France has involved the western world in this conflict.
Saying that there are no ideals on the loyalist side is nonsensical. The overarching ideal would be a dictatorial mindset with the rebels representing a mindset of freedom.
France has caused us to be involved just like in Nam.
27848
Post by: ChrisWWII
halonachos wrote:So the fact that France is involved is something we agree to.
Yes
But you're saying that Libya is lacking in ideological sides?
Libya has ideolgoy involved in this conflict, but it's very much different from what was going on in Vietnam. In Vietnam, a global communist movement was fighting the global Western movement through proxy. There is no such conflict of global ideology in Libya.
Libya isn't a French colony so of course it can't be related to Vietnam.
No one's giving Libya weapons so it can't be similar.
Except these things are kind of important. The reason France invested so heavily in Indochina was because it was their colony. The fact that no great superpower is supplying Libya with arms is also significant as it recognizes the fact that neither the Libyan government nor the rebels are a front for a larger organization/political alliance. These differences are significant enough to derail your comparison.
The similarities include the political actions of France. This political action that caused the rest of the Western world to become involved in the affairs of another country
There doesn't have to be another benefactor giving the Libyan government money and Libya doesn't have to be a French colony to acknowledge the fact that France has involved the western world in this conflict.
Saying that there are no ideals on the loyalist side is nonsensical. The overarching ideal would be a dictatorial mindset with the rebels representing a mindset of freedom.
France has caused us to be involved just like in Nam.
Once again, as I said, there are ideologies, however Libya is not a proxy war clash of two global superpowers vying for supremacy. It is a local conflict.
Secondly, the US and the rest of the Western world was involved with Libya long before the French recognized the rebel government. The US, UK and other nations were supporting a no fly zone, an American carrier was dispatched to the Mediterannean, and the British were arguably talking to the government in Benghazi. France simply took the first step in legitimizing the rebel government.
Saying that France drew the rest of the West into Libya is like saying that Harry Truman led the US into World War II. In both situations, the US/Western world was heavily involved prior to the event in question.
37036
Post by: Sir Pseudonymous
There's really nothing comparable beyond "France...", you might as well be comparing it to WWI, because that involved France doing something too...
France has said "Eh, we think those guys are the legitimate government now." That has nothing to do with France trying to hold onto a colony with military force, which we became involved in for completely different reasons after they were ousted.
12061
Post by: halonachos
America hasn't invested in a no-fly zone yet.
If you look at my original post I said that France was going to drag us into a conflict like in Vietnam. If France wasn't involved in Vietnam then would we have been involved in Vietnam?
I also said if they start another Vietnam like situation. I mean a protracted war in between a country divided. I don't mean that communists are trying to take Libya away from France, I mean that France was going to be the start of the western world's involvement en masse.
So if you guys are too busy focusing on the communism aspect of the war its not my problem.
5534
Post by: dogma
halonachos wrote:
The similarities include the political actions of France. This political action that caused the rest of the Western world to become involved in the affairs of another country.
France took no political action in order to involve any other nation in Vietnam. Similarly, a French declaration of recognition has not necessary impact on the actions of other Western nations.
You're applying a categorical noun (the West) in the same way that you are applying a singular, specific noun (France). This is fundamentally incorrect.
halonachos wrote:
There doesn't have to be another benefactor giving the Libyan government money and Libya doesn't have to be a French colony to acknowledge the fact that France has involved the western world in this conflict.
The Western world is not a monolith. What France chooses to do has no necessary bearing on what any other Western nation might choose to do.
halonachos wrote:
Saying that there are no ideals on the loyalist side is nonsensical. The overarching ideal would be a dictatorial mindset with the rebels representing a mindset of freedom.
When I mentioned an overarching ideal I was referring to the sort of thing that Communism represented during the Cold War.
Regardless, a mindset is not the same thing as an ideal. A mindset entails a set of fundamental assumption, whereas an ideal is the product of such assumptions. More to the point, there is no particular evidence to support the notion that there is any particular mindset on either side of the conflict, it may simply be about personal profit written across large groups of people.
halonachos wrote:
France has caused us to be involved just like in Nam.
You must be trolling. There is literally no other remotely flattering explanation.
12061
Post by: halonachos
Can you seriously get past the communism aspect of Vietnam? I'm beginning to doubt that you can.
5534
Post by: dogma
halonachos wrote:If France wasn't involved in Vietnam then would we have been involved in Vietnam?
If Russia didn't exist, then would there have been a Cold War?
963
Post by: Mannahnin
Halo, if you're sincerely interested in the subject, and really can't see the vast differences between the two conflicts, you honestly need to do more reading and less posting on this one.
Your posts are beginning to smell of trolling from a moderator perspective.
5534
Post by: dogma
halonachos wrote:Can you seriously get past the communism aspect of Vietnam? I'm beginning to doubt that you can.
This isn't that difficult. Communism, in the context of the Vietnam conflict, represented a significant ideological challenge to the sort of economic system, capitalism, that the United States subscribed to during the period. Because North Vietnam was a Communist state, it was naturally placed in opposition to the United States by the overarching conflict that characterized the entirety of the Cold War. Divorced from context, the important thing to note is not that North Vietnam was a Communist state, but that it was a state that subscribed to an ideology that the United States considered to be a specific threat to its security. The point being that there were compelling reasons for the United States to be involved in Vietnam besides "the French did something".
Again, Communism is only relevant in the context of the Cold War in that it represents something that the United States perceived to be a global threat to its own security.
12061
Post by: halonachos
France took no political action to involve another country, but then again I never said they did.
I said that France failed politically in Vietnam, they didn't fulfill a promise to a certain someone who got mad and decided to join the Communist bandwagon. France wanted to keep their colony and acted militarily and got their ass kicked. We then stepped in to help them because France couldn't deal with Vietnam.
According to CNN Libya has some natural borders and some political borders. These political borders were put into place by the Italians but enclosed two different types of people; African tribes and muslims. These two people don't see eye to eye and are fighting each other, one supports Ghadafi and the other wants him ousted. So we have two groups seeking power; one wants to keep it and the other wants to take it away.
I think we can agree about that.
France is saying that the rebels are now the legitimate government. Now that means they should be willing to support the legitimate government militarily if need be. If France gets involved there's a strong chance that we may get involved as well.
5534
Post by: dogma
halonachos wrote:France took no political action to involve another country, but then again I never said they did.
Yeah, you did.
halonachos wrote:
The similarities include the political actions of France. This political action that caused the rest of the Western world to become involved in the affairs of another country.
halonachos wrote:
I said that France failed politically in Vietnam, they didn't fulfill a promise to a certain someone who got mad and decided to join the Communist bandwagon.
Again, that is absolutely incorrect. Ho Chi Minh had no intention of ever agreeing to any realistic set of French demands. In fact, he embraced Communism while being educated in France.
halonachos wrote:
According to CNN Libya has some natural borders and some political borders. These political borders were put into place by the Italians but enclosed two different types of people; African tribes and muslims. These two people don't see eye to eye and are fighting each other, one supports Ghadafi and the other wants him ousted. So we have two groups seeking power; one wants to keep it and the other wants to take it away.
Oh, oh God. That's so unbelievably wrong it isn't even funny. Libya can no more be reduced to matters of "ethnicity" than Darfur, which is to say that neither case can be so simplified.
Just off the top of my head I can tell you that Libya is nearly 99% Muslim, and that there is no sort of categorical reason that a given person cannot be both an African tribesman, and a Muslim.
halonachos wrote:
I think we can agree about that.
No, we can't.
halonachos wrote:
France is saying that the rebels are now the legitimate government. Now that means they should be willing to support the legitimate government militarily if need be.
No, no it doesn't. There is no direct, logical connection between the recognition of one body as a legitimate government, and military intervention.
21853
Post by: mattyrm
Ive got a raging hangover and this back and forth between Dogma and Halo is driving me back to drink....
27848
Post by: ChrisWWII
halonachos wrote:France took no political action to involve another country, but then again I never said they did.
You very clearyly said that.
I said that France failed politically in Vietnam, they didn't fulfill a promise to a certain someone who got mad and decided to join the Communist bandwagon. France wanted to keep their colony and acted militarily and got their ass kicked. We then stepped in to help them because France couldn't deal with Vietnam.
Which is arguably true. The French got kicked out of Vietnam (with mild military support from the US), and in the negotiations ending the French involvement in Indochina, Vietnam was divided into two states pending elections to determine a national government. However, the elections failed to take place, and war broke out between the South Vietnamese government, and Vietcong rebels (who were supported by North Vietnam). In accordance with its containment policies, the US stepped in militarily.
France didn't drag us into Vietnam. We got ourselves into Vietnam, and if we get involved in Libya, we will be the ones getting ourselves in.
According to CNN Libya has some natural borders and some political borders. These political borders were put into place by the Italians but enclosed two different types of people; African tribes and muslims. These two people don't see eye to eye and are fighting each other, one supports Ghadafi and the other wants him ousted. So we have two groups seeking power; one wants to keep it and the other wants to take it away.
Not necessarily, the ethnic break down of Libya is much more north-south than east-west, and there is currently an East West divide between the two factions.
France is saying that the rebels are now the legitimate government. Now that means they should be willing to support the legitimate government militarily if need be. If France gets involved there's a strong chance that we may get involved as well.
The US recognizes Russia, does that mean that they must support the Russian government by bombing Chechen rebels? No, it doesn't. You can recognize a nation as sovereign, and recognize a new government without getting involved militarily. Even if France gets involved, there's no reason we have to get involved as well. The foreign policy of France does no affect the foreign policy of the US, the UK or Germany. France will do what it wants, and the rest of the West will do what they want.
11029
Post by: Ketara
I can't believe you guys are having a debate with someone who can write a sentence like this and think it a good point.
France is saying that the rebels are now the legitimate government. Now that means they should be willing to support the legitimate government militarily if need be.
I mean.....seriously? The stupidity contained in this sentence actually makes my brain hurt.
No offence halo, but if this is truely your concept of how international politics works, then please. Just give it up. Quickly and painlessly. For the sake of saving my desk from my head hitting it repeatedly. 
27848
Post by: ChrisWWII
Despite being a major cynic, I continue to believe that most human beings can be dealt with logically and rationally, even though they continue to spew the most ill-informed, idiotic spiel ever crafted by the human mind.
Of course, I'm likely wrong with that idea, but hey...it can't hurt to try, no?
12061
Post by: halonachos
Ketara wrote:I can't believe you guys are having a debate with someone who can write a sentence like this and think it a good point.
France is saying that the rebels are now the legitimate government. Now that means they should be willing to support the legitimate government militarily if need be.
I mean.....seriously? The stupidity contained in this sentence actually makes my brain hurt.
No offence halo, but if this is truely your concept of how international politics works, then please. Just give it up. Quickly and painlessly. For the sake of saving my desk from my head hitting it repeatedly.
There's a difference between should and would. Why would a nation declare a rebel group as the sovereign government of a nation? If you can answer that one for me then go ahead, I want to hear how your understanding of international politics works.
37036
Post by: Sir Pseudonymous
halonachos wrote:There's a difference between should and would. Why would a nation declare a rebel group as the sovereign government of a nation? If you can answer that one for me then go ahead, I want to hear how your understanding of international politics works.
To try to make people forget about their involvement with the now-axe-crazy fallen dictator sitting in Tripoli?
5534
Post by: dogma
halonachos wrote:
There's a difference between should and would. Why would a nation declare a rebel group as the sovereign government of a nation? If you can answer that one for me then go ahead, I want to hear how your understanding of international politics works.
There are a number of possible reasons.
1: The nation in question believes that the rebels are winning, and wishes to show support. Generally this is about getting on the good side of the future government.
2: The nation in question believes that the rebels are losing, and wants to show support. Generally this is about making an explicit regarding the designs said nation has relative to the political affairs of the country in which rebellion is occurring.
3: The nation in question believes that the generally recognized state has no capacity to enforce its own sovereignty, and therefore does not differentiate between the two groups in the sense of rebels v. establishment. Instead they see only two competing, equally important, factions.
4: The nation in question is engaged in a collective conversation with a group of other states regarding what should be done about the conflict in another state, and wishes to lend additional credence to its diplomatic position (this is probably why France recognized the Libyan rebels as the legitimate government of Libya).
5: The nation in question has a compelling financial reason to recognize the rebels as the legitimate government, regardless of whether or not they have a significant chance of victory.
6: The nation in question has compelling, internal political reason to recognize the rebels as the legitimate government, regardless of whether or not they have a significant chance of victory.
The list goes on, and on again if you're not speaking in generalities.
Edit: Also, while there is a difference between should and would, I'm confused as to why you believe that the recognition of one particular government as legitimate should entail a military commitment. Not only has that never actually been the case, but if it were it would lead to a great many wars.
12061
Post by: halonachos
So it has reasons for supporting them right? Now if the nation in question's reason for supporting the rebels is further endangered by the loyalists what steps are next for the nation in question?
Lets go with economics because they're usually popular.
The nation in question is interested in product 'X' from Libya and declares the rebels as the new leaders of Libya. Let's say that the rebels have a strong chance of losing after an offensive carried out by loyalist forces.
What would the nation in question do next?
Also, dogma wrote:
4: The nation in question is engaged in a collective conversation with a group of other states regarding what should be done about the conflict in another state, and wishes to lend additional credence to its diplomatic position (this is probably why France recognized the Libyan rebels as the legitimate government of Libya).
Sounds like France is using diplomatic action to get other nations involved in the situation in Libya to me. Either that or France is using diplomatic action to justify further steps.
5534
Post by: dogma
halonachos wrote:So it has reasons for supporting them right? Now if the nation in question's reason for supporting the rebels is further endangered by the loyalists what steps are next for the nation in question?
Lets go with economics because they're usually popular.
The nation in question is interested in product 'X' from Libya and declares the rebels as the new leaders of Libya. Let's say that the rebels have a strong chance of losing after an offensive carried out by loyalist forces.
What would the nation in question do next?
Maybe they apply more pressure, or maybe they apply less. It depends on how important the product is to the pressuring nation, and how much support they have for their actions.
halonachos wrote:
Sounds like France is using diplomatic action to get other nations involved in the situation in Libya to me. Either that or France is using diplomatic action to justify further steps.
Most likely, but as has been said many times before, that doesn't make the conflict similar to Vietnam. If for no other reason than the fact that France didn't draw the United States into Vietnam.
12061
Post by: halonachos
The nation in question is using the move(calling the rebels the new government) to justify their actions. I don't know if Libya has any real sources for economic pressure, but let's say oil. Oil's a pretty popular resource and the rebels have a major oil port in control. The loyalist forces are pushing towards this point and if the loyalists win, the nation in question may most likely suffer from its decision.
It would apply pressure in this situation I think.
If product 'X' was something like dates or figs then they would reduce the pressure although what has been done has been done.
Ghadafi will find a way to punish the nation in question if he remains in power either with suppressing the supply of product or through sponsored agents. So the nation in question decides to apply further pressure, how would it do that?
@second point.
Why did the US enter Vietnam then?
5534
Post by: dogma
halonachos wrote:The nation in question is using the move(calling the rebels the new government) to justify their actions. I don't know if Libya has any real sources for economic pressure, but let's say oil. Oil's a pretty popular resource and the rebels have a major oil port in control. The loyalist forces are pushing towards this point and if the loyalists win, the nation in question may most likely suffer from its decision.
It would apply pressure in this situation I think.
Not necessarily. There are more variables to consider than value of resource X, and threat to resource X. You also have to look at the support for any action to protect resource X, the severity of threat to resource X, the cost of action against resource X, etc.
Every government in the world pays lots of people a good chunk of money to do this sort of work, it isn't the type of thing that can generally be reduced to two variables.
halonachos wrote:
Ghadafi will find a way to punish the nation in question if he remains in power either with suppressing the supply of product or through sponsored agents. So the nation in question decides to apply further pressure, how would it do that?
Maybe Gaddafi applies pressure, maybe he doesn't. Regardless of his political goals, he depends on oil for his own security, and that means he has to deal with the global oil price (over which he has very little control) and the set of possible buyers (reducing his option with respect to sale).
But, to answer your question, sanctions generally are the next step. Sanctions are also often thought of as the equilibrium step in that they tend to remain in place for really long periods of time with no real change in the state of affairs.
halonachos wrote:
Why did the US enter Vietnam then?
Doctrine of containment.
12061
Post by: halonachos
We have history of Ghadafi having backwards thinking though. After his house was bombed in the 80's he didn't rebuild it out of defiance. How not rebuilding a house shows defiance is beyond me, but that's what he said. Ghadafi also supported terrorists which was the major factor for us bombing Libya in the 80s. He has been bombing his own citizens, I think it would be safe to say that Ghadafi will try something should he stay in power.
Given Ghadafi's history how would he respond to a sanction do you think?
@second point:
To contain communism, domino effect, red scare, etc. Why were the communists invading?
5534
Post by: dogma
halonachos wrote:
Given Ghadafi's history how would he respond to a sanction do you think?
He has also tried to ingratiate himself to the West (giving up WMDs in particular) so it is difficult to say. It seems as though he realizes that he is walking a tightrope (if it is actually him that is in power) so I would guess that any action he might take would be either nonexistent or delicate.
halonachos wrote:
To contain communism, domino effect, red scare, etc. Why were the communists invading?
The Communists didn't invade.
27848
Post by: ChrisWWII
halonachos wrote:
@second point:
To contain communism, domino effect, red scare, etc. Why were the communists invading?
As a joint IR-History major, let me help answer that. I believe I previously explained all this too...
Basically, the French attempt to hold onto colonial power failed, and they were ousted by insurgent forces in the North who were supported by Communist powers. In the Genever Accords negotiating the French withdrawal from Indochina, it was agreed that Vietnam would be 'temporarily' divided in two, similar to how Korea had been divided at the end of WW2. The Communist forces withdrew North, while pro-Western forces withdrew south prending a referendum that would decide who would be the final government of the country.
However, this was not to be the case. The Ngo Dinh Diem took control of the State of Vietnam in a rigged election (the guy got 133% of the vote in Saigon...I mean c'mon! At least try to cover your tracks!), and set about consolidating control of the South in a more..dictatorial fashion. Those people in the South who were opposed to this formed the Vietcong, who gained a lot of support from the Communist North.
In fears that the nation of Vietnam would fall to Communism, the US began to send military advisors to Vietnam. Under Kennedy, these were limited to advisors who helped train South Vietnamese forces, and under Johnson (after the Gulf of Tonkin incident) the US upgraded to bombing North Vietnamese installations. Later on, the United States began sending combat troops into South Vietnam to help fight the Vietcong insurgency....and the whole thing snowballed from there.
In any case, the French never dragged us in, we got involved of our own accord. The Communists never invaded, that was the biggest problem. If they invaded, the US could have unleashed its full conventional military might, and secured all of Vietnam. However it wasn't an invasion, it was a guerilla war fought in the jungles of South Vietnam, against North supplied and backed up forces.
11029
Post by: Ketara
Chris, Dogma, you guys have the patience of a saint. I bow out at this stage, the fact he actually tried to argue that sentence I queried tells me all I need to know about the odds of actually convincing Halo of the lunacy of his position.
12061
Post by: halonachos
Ketara wrote:Chris, Dogma, you guys have the patience of a saint. I bow out at this stage, the fact he actually tried to argue that sentence I queried tells me all I need to know about the odds of actually convincing Halo of the lunacy of his position.
So easy to attack, too hard to contribute. I would like to see you contribute something other than an attack on my state of mind, seeing as though each of your posts going against me have been some sort of insult. And from a mod no less... @Chris and Dogma. France tried to hold onto their colony and ended up failing at that, we can agree on that point. However, what happened after Dien Bien Phu and the ousting of the French from Vietnam?
5470
Post by: sebster
I'm pretty sure the only reason anyone would pick Vietnam for their comparison to this situation is because it is the only French operation they are aware of, and they have little or no idea about the actual specifics of events in Algeria or Vietnam.
Algeria is closer geographically and in terms of the actual events it seems a much more natural point of comparison. Vietnam is on the other side of globe, was subject to vastly different political forces, a product of very different history, and being treated in very different ways than France and the US are treating Libya.
Not that there's anything inherently wrong with being unaware of all the foreign adventures of some other country, or about the situations in Libya and Vietnam. We can't be expected to know everything about everything. But once your errors have been pointed out, carrying on insisting that your original view is sensible and well informed is just being inane. It is okay to admit that an earlier argument was weak and poorly considered, and to retract it. It might hurt your ego for a little bit, but people will actually think more of you for it.
5534
Post by: dogma
halonachos wrote:
However, what happened after Dien Bien Phu and the ousting of the French from Vietnam?
Vietnam was partitioned during the 1954 Geneva Conference. The two partitions were meant to reunite following the 1956 elections, but the State of Vietnam (the South), first supported by the French and then the Americans, did not support the partition agreement; eventually leading to war.
In any case, the driving force behind American involvement was the overall struggle against Communism. There is no comparable dynamic present with respect to Libya. Automatically Appended Next Post: sebster wrote:
Algeria is closer geographically and in terms of the actual events it seems a much more natural point of comparison.
And even then its way, way off.
5470
Post by: sebster
dogma wrote:And even then its way, way off.
Yeah, I actually had a sentence in there saying that, but it caused the paragraph to scan badly so I cut it. Then I thought about dropping the reference to Algeria entirely, then figured 'feth it I'll just post what I've written' 
Thinking about it, a far more fun comparison would be to the French support given in the American War of Independance...
At the end of the day this whole thing is ridiculous, because it's predicated on the idea of France being involved in Libya, as if a government resolution recognising a rebellion is somehow comparable to sending money, guns, or men. It doesn't commit the French to anything, let alone the US. It's not the only point of ridiculousness in halonachos' argument (claiming the French somehow dragged the US into Vietnam is another, as is pretending the Libyan rebellion has any relation to the history, politics, or military operations in Vietnam) but it is the first and clearest point of failure.
5534
Post by: dogma
sebster wrote:
Thinking about it, a far more fun comparison would be to the French support given in the American War of Independance...
Oh, I agree completely. In fact, my final paper for my class in Modernization is going to based on a comparison between the American Revolution, and the conflict and Libya.
12061
Post by: halonachos
But in the American War of Independance France was helping a colony break away from its home country. Not too mention the fact that France and England were bitter rivals during that time period.
The Libyan war isn't about a colony fighting for its independence as you noted in attack of my relations, so its not really the same as the War of Independence. Even then France would have to be supporting the colony of a long-term enemy.
27848
Post by: ChrisWWII
Well the immediate superficial similariries are that a rebel group is attempting to overthrow the rule of a 'tyrant', and France has a beef with said tyrant. (The West really doesn't like Gadaffi too much.) To show their support for the rebels, the French recognized their government as independe nt from the tyrants. Pretty superficially similar.
I'm sure dogma could give a better explanation, as he is writing a paper on the subject.
5534
Post by: dogma
halonachos wrote:
The Libyan war isn't about a colony fighting for its independence as you noted in attack of my relations, so its not really the same as the War of Independence. Even then France would have to be supporting the colony of a long-term enemy.
The argument is that states will engage with conflicts when they feel that their interests are threatened, even when that "threat" is somewhat tangential to the actual matter.
France is engaging the Libyan issue due to its relationship with the several other North African nations, and they engaged with the American issue for essentially the same reason (issues with England, and claims to North America).
5470
Post by: sebster
halonachos wrote:But in the American War of Independance France was helping a colony break away from its home country. Not too mention the fact that France and England were bitter rivals during that time period.
So when comparing the American War of Independance and Libya the political drives of the combatants matter.
But they didn't when comparing Libya to Vietnam...
12061
Post by: halonachos
For me, no I can see where the wars can be compared. I tend to have an easy ability to relate one thing to another albeit somewhat simple to some people. I was trying to compare my comparison to their comparison. Where my comparison has been completely thrown out the window save for the involvement of France they feel that the American Revolution is similar to the Libyan situation. I am trying to take the same arguments they had against me and throwing it against them. They said that Libya and Vietnam cannot be compared due to the context of the combat(communism, colonial status, etc). The context of the American Revolution involved an English colony fighting against England in order to establish itself as a new nation. France gave military aid to the colonies because they didn't like the English and they had some territories in the North American continent, not to mention the fur trade. In Libya we have a nation's citizens rising up to fight its own nation. However, the Libyan rebels are not fighting to establish a new country but merely trying to oust Ghadafi from power. Now if the Colonists had tried to remove the King of England from power then the two would be similar. France also gave direct military aid to the colonists where no direct military aid has been given in Libya. So to sum it up: Differences: 1) Colonists in Revolution were attempting to establish their own nation vs ousting a regime. 2) France gave direct military aid vs no military aid. 3) France had territory on the North American continent it wanted to protect vs no territory in Libya to protect. 4) France was attempting to harm the English economy vs France trying to hurt the Libyan government. Similarities: 1) France was involved. 2) Economics reasons, although the specifics are different. Automatically Appended Next Post: dogma wrote:halonachos wrote:
The Libyan war isn't about a colony fighting for its independence as you noted in attack of my relations, so its not really the same as the War of Independence. Even then France would have to be supporting the colony of a long-term enemy.
The argument is that states will engage with conflicts when they feel that their interests are threatened, even when that "threat" is somewhat tangential to the actual matter. France is engaging the Libyan issue due to its relationship with the several other North African nations, and they engaged with the American issue for essentially the same reason (issues with England, and claims to North America).
If that's so then every war on Earth may be compared to one another. If the argument is indeed "states will engage with conflicts when they feel that their interests are threatened" then Korea, Vietnam, both Gulf Wars, the Libyan war, etc can all be compared. Korea and Vietnam both have political interests(containment), the Gulf Wars and the Afghanistan war had political/economic/militaristic(terrorism sponsors), the Libyan war has political reasons(maybe economic as well), and the Revolutionary war had political/economic reasons. The 'argument' you propose is too vague to do any good. In all of the listed wars some nation had their interests threatened and then engaged in conflict(save for Libya so far). You need to fine tune it to exclude certain parameters in my opinion.
15667
Post by: Emperors Faithful
The point does still stand though that the American Revolution is more comparable to the current situation in Libya than the Vietnam war.
12061
Post by: halonachos
Emperors Faithful wrote:The point does still stand though that the American Revolution is more comparable to the current situation in Libya than the Vietnam war.
How?
France is not aiding the rebelling colonists of another nation, it is not getting militarily involved, it is not protecting territory, its not aiding the 'rebels' to get back at another country, and its not aiding the creation of a new country.
Although I guess that the colonists were called 'rebels' in the Revolutionary war and the Libyan war also has rebels is another similarity.
15667
Post by: Emperors Faithful
halonachos wrote:Emperors Faithful wrote:The point does still stand though that the American Revolution is more comparable to the current situation in Libya than the Vietnam war.
How?
France is not aiding the rebelling colonists of another nation, it is not getting militarily involved, it is not protecting territory, its not aiding the 'rebels' to get back at another country, and its not aiding the creation of a new country.
Although I guess that the colonists were called 'rebels' in the Revolutionary war and the Libyan war also has rebels is another similarity.
Which, hilariously, STILL makes it more comparable than Vietnam. Automatically Appended Next Post: Vietnam:
-Militarily involved
-Preserving their colony
-Resisting popular movement
-Lost
American Revolution:
-Militarily involved
-Supporting popular movement
-Support requested specifically
-Won
Libya:
-Not militarily involved (yet, though no real reason that it should be)
-Supporting popular movement
-Support requested (though not specifically)
5534
Post by: dogma
halonachos wrote:
If that's so then every war on Earth may be compared to one another. If the argument is indeed "states will engage with conflicts when they feel that their interests are threatened" then Korea, Vietnam, both Gulf Wars, the Libyan war, etc can all be compared.
Yeah, in the sense that they're wars. Its like saying that Einstein might be compared to McCarthy because both were human.
Oh noes! General Relativity initiated the Red Scare of Gregor Mendel!
11029
Post by: Ketara
halonachos wrote:Ketara wrote:Chris, Dogma, you guys have the patience of a saint. I bow out at this stage, the fact he actually tried to argue that sentence I queried tells me all I need to know about the odds of actually convincing Halo of the lunacy of his position.
So easy to attack, too hard to contribute. I would like to see you contribute something other than an attack on my state of mind, seeing as though each of your posts going against me have been some sort of insult. And from a mod no less...
Sir, I would honestly not know where to begin. If someone makes a statement such as 'the sky is green', and then continues to defend it despite a couple of chaps rolling up with a census from the majority of the world population certifying its blueness, and all supporting scientific evidence with regard to the effect of light on the eye, there is little to argue. There is nothing I could state that has not already been stated on the issue. Continued adherence to views such as:-
France is saying that the rebels are now the legitimate government. Now that means they should be willing to support the legitimate government militarily if need be.
in light of several people repteadly demonstrating the fundamental incorrectness of such a statement just boggles the mind. I'm sorry, but to my mind, with regards to politics/IR, this is equivalent to the 'sky is green' comment. You then go on to start trying to subdivide the question and debate the meaning of 'should' in this case.
And then you start talking about invading communists? In a subject with regards to a civil war in Northern Africa with no ideological connotations?
I'm sorry if this comes off as high handed, I really am, but there are so very many things wrong with what you're saying, it genuinely is a case of 'easy to attack, too hard to contribute'. Because that the contribution (or appropriate refutation in this case), has been made several times over by separate people, and it seems to fail to register on you at all.
5470
Post by: sebster
halonachos wrote:Where my comparison has been completely thrown out the window save for the involvement of France they feel that the American Revolution is similar to the Libyan situation.
I don't think it's a particularly useful comparison either, I just said it was a more fun one. For my mind both are so loose as to be entirely ridiculous.
dogma offered an approach that gives a decent parallel between the two, though the terms are vague enough that it could probably be used to describe a lot of conflicts - the proof will be in the paper itself.
Meanwhile, you're still missing the biggest problem with your comparison to France getting bogged down in Vietnam. France hasn't done anything in regards to Libya, apart from give warm fuzzies. They recognised some rebels. They didn't give them money or guns, or done anything that'll commit them to such down the track.
241
Post by: Ahtman
dogma wrote:Oh noes! General Relativity initiated the Red Scare of Gregor Mendel!
This made me laugh more than it probably should have.
12061
Post by: halonachos
sebster wrote:halonachos wrote:Where my comparison has been completely thrown out the window save for the involvement of France they feel that the American Revolution is similar to the Libyan situation.
I don't think it's a particularly useful comparison either, I just said it was a more fun one. For my mind both are so loose as to be entirely ridiculous. dogma offered an approach that gives a decent parallel between the two, though the terms are vague enough that it could probably be used to describe a lot of conflicts - the proof will be in the paper itself. Meanwhile, you're still missing the biggest problem with your comparison to France getting bogged down in Vietnam. France hasn't done anything in regards to Libya, apart from give warm fuzzies. They recognised some rebels. They didn't give them money or guns, or done anything that'll commit them to such down the track.
Which means the Libyan war cannot be compared to the Revolutionary war. Vietnam= France involved militarily, French colony, France attempting to preserve territory, lost. Revolution= France involved militarily, English colony, France attempting to preserve territory, won. Libya= France involved politically, previous Italian territory, France has no territory to preserve, N/A. @ketara, I didn't bring up Communism so you'll have to look at Dogma or EF for that. @Dogma, you made the vague argument. Don't criticize me for pointing it out.
5534
Post by: dogma
halonachos wrote:
Which means the Libyan war cannot be compared to the Revolutionary war.
Vietnam= France involved militarily, French colony, France attempting to preserve territory, lost.
Revolution= France involved militarily, English colony, France attempting to preserve territory, won.
Libya= France involved politically, previous Italian territory, France has no territory to preserve, N/A.
For full disclosure, the paper in question is being written half in jest. I don't take my class assignments very seriously, because they really don't have anything to do with the work that I'm interested (applying higher mathematics to the analysis of politics).
In any case, you're oversimplifying. France has provided no material aid (that I'm aware of) to the Libyan rebels. However, in recognizing them as the legitimate government they have taken an official measure that parallels the de facto recognition granted to the American colonies.
I'm not sure where you're getting this idea that France was attempting to preserve territory during the Revolution. They had interests in North America, sure, but their territory there was not under threat.
12061
Post by: halonachos
I would say that France took preventative steps when it came to their territory. France supported the colonists to hurt England, that's almost guaranteed, but France may have feared what would happen to its land after the war. If France had not supported the colonists and they won, the colonists may have felt strong enough to try to take French territory. By allying with the colonists France could say that they were allies all along and use that to prevent the new America from attempting to take any land.
If France had not done anything and England suppressed the colonists, then France would have to worry about the English government using the colonies as a staging ground for their troops a la the French-Indian War.
So by aiding the colonists they created an ally on the coast of the continent closest to Europe(the French had lost Canada by this time), they reduced the amount of land the English could land in(by reducing their coast to the eastern Canadian coast), and by making an ally they prevented the new country from taking French territory.
I like to think of it like WW2. Germany couldn't successfully invade America unless they had a staging ground for the invasion closer to America. America was able to use the British Isles as a staging ground and was able to invade Europe.
Now I want it to be clear that I am not comparing WW2 to the Revolutionary War, but trying to explain the whole 'staging area/landing point' reasons for why France was defending their territory.
Also: I count giving weapons as a military move, which they have yet to do so according to the press. They have only made a political move so I will say that France has only made a political move until either shady dealings are discovered or France openly gives the rebels weapons.
5534
Post by: dogma
halonachos wrote:If France had not supported the colonists and they won, the colonists may have felt strong enough to try to take French territory. By allying with the colonists France could say that they were allies all along and use that to prevent the new America from attempting to take any land.
Nah, no one was worried about the American colonists taking over anything. Their military was pathetic.
halonachos wrote:
If France had not done anything and England suppressed the colonists, then France would have to worry about the English government using the colonies as a staging ground for their troops a la the French-Indian War.
Sure, but that wasn't a condition related to the war, but the fact that the English controlled a certain tract of land. The Revolution was an opportunity to end that control, but nothing more.
halonachos wrote:
So by aiding the colonists they created an ally on the coast of the continent closest to Europe(the French had lost Canada by this time), they reduced the amount of land the English could land in(by reducing their coast to the eastern Canadian coast), and by making an ally they prevented the new country from taking French territory.
They didn't prevent the new country from taking French territory. The Americans could have, had they been able to, taken the territory anyway; regardless of any "sentiment" that might have existed. France supported America because it hurt the English, and because any state that might form after the revolution would be no threat to France, under any circumstances.
12061
Post by: halonachos
The French and Indian War begs to differ.
The war caused France to lose territory in the North American continent(namely Quebec). This meant that France could not land on the east coast due to the fact that it was all under English control. This would delay the arrival of French troops in North America(as they would have to go to the Gulf of Mexico or Mexico itself) and allow the English forces easier arrival(seeing as though all of the ports on the east coast were friendly). France still had territory in the continent and a fur trade as well, but would be unable to readily reinforce it should another colonial war break out.
The French and Indian War also gave colonial soldiers experience in fighting the French. These same soldiers proved useful in the Revolutionary War for the colonists.
Now back to my point of France defending land.
France was most likely going to give support, if the colonists lost it made England mad but the English didn't like the French anyways. If the colonists won then it would hurt England and help them. America was a fledgling country and while their navy was a joke, their land forces were experienced after two wars(French/Indian and Revolutionary) and also knew the land.
I will cite the War of 1812 where the English used Canada as a staging area, and the preceding events to show a relationship with France. England blockaded the Atlantic coast because America was trading with France while Napoleon was warring against the English.
So after the Revolutionary War, I would feel safe to say that America had a tight relationship with France compared to the English. So while the Colonial Army may have been able to take the land they would need to be ordered by the government of the time, a government that enjoyed France's friendship.
France had to worry about the ownership of the colonies, if the British owned the entire Atlantic coastline then it would take longer for French trade ships to deliver goods and it would also take longer to deliver troops or supplies if the English felt it was necessary to use the colonists to take French territory. Yes, England owned a large tract of land and yes it would end that control, but there is more to it than just that.
5534
Post by: dogma
halonachos wrote:The French and Indian War begs to differ.
The war caused France to lose territory in the North American continent(namely Quebec). This meant that France could not land on the east coast due to the fact that it was all under English control. This would delay the arrival of French troops in North America(as they would have to go to the Gulf of Mexico or Mexico itself) and allow the English forces easier arrival(seeing as though all of the ports on the east coast were friendly). France still had territory in the continent and a fur trade as well, but would be unable to readily reinforce it should another colonial war break out.
Yes, the French lost territory during the French-Indian War. That's not relevant to my point that, at the time of the American Revolution, no French territory was under threat.
halonachos wrote:
France was most likely going to give support, if the colonists lost it made England mad but the English didn't like the French anyways. If the colonists won then it would hurt England and help them. America was a fledgling country and while their navy was a joke, their land forces were experienced after two wars(French/Indian and Revolutionary) and also knew the land.
No, their land forces were also a joke. Its not like the Americans drove the British into the sea, though lots of people like to pretend otherwise.
halonachos wrote:
So after the Revolutionary War, I would feel safe to say that America had a tight relationship with France compared to the English.
No, that's false. The American relationship with England, while contentious, was still very close due to the commercial ties in question
This is where I bow out of this, your grasp of history is God awful, and I have no interest in educating someone that is less knowledgeable than the average Freshman that I tutor.
5470
Post by: sebster
halonachos wrote:Which means the Libyan war cannot be compared to the Revolutionary war.
Yeah, which is what I said. I'm finding it very strange that you're now complaining about loose comparisons, when you spent so long trying to defend your own very loose comparison.
If it was just a case of you throwing out this idea about Libya being some kind of new Vietnam due to France's involvement, then couldn't you have just admitted it wasn't a great comparison three pages ago, and saved us all a lot of bother?
15667
Post by: Emperors Faithful
sebster wrote:If it was just a case of you throwing out this idea about Libya being some kind of new Vietnam due to France's involvement, then couldn't you have just admitted it wasn't a great comparison three pages ago, and saved us all a lot of bother?
Pretty much.
|
|
