Apple haters

[diode]

Le 23 mars 2011 à 22:30, Peter Korsten a écrit :

> Op 23-3-2011 14:58, diode schreef:
> 
>> - Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia were part of the Austrian-Hungary Empire before Versailles� (not saying they didn't deserve independance and so on, just they weren't independant at that time, and Princip who "started all things" somehow in 1914 killed the Archiduke in Sarajevo (Bosnia) and was a Serbian�
> 
> Yes, I took a short-cut there. They were independent at some point, but 
> got annexed by the Hapsburg monarchy.

Well at the time they were absolutely not. :)

>> Anyway, Balkans are a bag of sorrow for a long long time�
> 
> Still are...

And will be still… :(

>> - It's in fact the intervention (bombing) of NATO that started the ethnic cleaning in Kosovo.
> 
> Yes, I remember now. Still, the trend was there.

Certainly, but such meddling without the cleaning started was far fetched, but it's all the problematic on to intervene in such situation.

>> One point that I want stated is that NATO interventions in Afghanistan, Kosovo and maybe coming in Libya are not legit. As the treaty is a defensive one and no NATO country was attacked specifically. It's all a move from the treaty started by Clinton and Bush, but the europeans should never had accepted this.
> 
> Well, what is legit? The way that Hitler assumed absolute powers (OK, 
> OK, I know, once you mention Hitler you lose the argument) was 
> technically speaking legit.

It was a long time before some good ole Godwin :o)

> And any action against Serbia would have 
> been vetoed by Russia in the Security Council.

Damn, I forgot this stupid "slavian attitude", it was totally mad (and still is).

> In fact, many people are 
> surprised that the French and British managed to have such a 
> far-reaching resolution pass this time around.

because the resolution wasn't read right enough…

And because Kadhafi made a big mistake : he warned of troubles in the mediterranean see and Europe that could be taken as terrorism or piracy. And that, none with the veto vote could argue about it. 

And they certainly all think with the post-intervention libyan market… Plus Russia and China think heavily on Tchetchenia, Tibet…

> Afghanistan: no idea if there was a resolution.

It felled under Nato treaty by the Ben Laden>Taliban>Afghan link. Now it never reached NATO that Ben Laden nor  Al qaida are countries attacking another one. Does it work by the letter I'm not so sure.

Not sure there's a resolution too… 

> Iraq: well, let's not go there again.

:o)

> Libya: far-reaching, so open to interpretation.

All the interventions on humanitarian aim are far reaching… Save here Kadhafi already started to kill.

> Yes, NATO is a defensive organisation, but ever since the end of the 
> Pact of Warsaw, it lost its raison d'être. So it could either call it 
> quits, or find something else to do.

NATO is based on a treaty, which is clear enough, and whatever NATO is doing, its only legit ways to intervene need still a NATO country to be attacked…

> SC resolution 1970 calls for an arms embargo, but I don't know if it 
> includes the rebels.

What I've read of it was that the wording concerned Kadhafi… :o) But to be sure we should do our homework and read the resolution.

>> What bothers me more is Sarkozy is a moron (note to the DCRI guys reading this, this is a PRIVATE list), and totally stupid at foreign policy and diplomacy. And i really don't want him to start us a "war/we are surrounded by enemies/lets kill some idiotic muslims in a remote desert country, preferably where there's oil" for the godsake of the forthcoming presidential election (2012).
> 
> Well, look at the bright side. It could be worse: it could be Berlusconi. :)

They are the same… and pals… :(
(depressing…)

>> Now after a few days, there won't be a DCA, plane, nor transmitter working for Kadhafi, and we'll see were it all goes from there.
>> 
>> I'm still wondering why rockets and light artillery didn't made thru to the rebels YET�
> 
> This reminds me of the 'Toyota War'. This is where the Libyan armed 
> forces were humiliated by a bunch of Chadians driving 'specials' 
> (basically, a Toyota pick-up truck with a heavy machine gun mounted on 
> it), and some anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles that were helpfully 
> supplied by France.

Our rockets and missiles just work… :o)

Be sure that the French certainly helped the Chadians by giving intelligence too (satellite photos, radar coverage…)

(I had forgotten this one…)

Le 23 mars 2011 à 23:24, The Dong a écrit :

> On 23/03/2011 21:30, Peter Korsten wrote:
>> Libya: far-reaching, so open to interpretation.
> 
> President Obama (and likely the other countries leaders) broke their own 
> laws by not engaging with congress (or insert parliamentary body here) 
> to decide whether or not to join in with the UN BS!
> Obama is being labelled a war criminal simply for this by certain folks.
> (Ron Paul for one)

UN mandate, it's "not" war but "international police". (You've called international police, hold on please)

States are very good are not calling wars war…

Trouble is, in the US Clinton/Bush/Reagan did make war without congress  (no UN mandate save maybe for Clinton but I'm not sure it was voted before the strikes in Kosovo). And bush/reagan operations were pure wars without an object that could be presented to SC seriously (though Bush tried).

Ralph Nader is furious at Obama too, now I do not know the US constitution enough to know if the simple fact to have a soldier operating under UN mandate needs Senate approval… It's not a state of war, for state of war, it IS mandatory (but less since the last 2 decades… as there's precedents) else Switzerland would be at war since the end of Corean war, as it has a small group there on the no mans land (but not for long, the swiss general there asked the operation to be stopped as it means nothing and both parties are really not cooperating effectively.)

(too late, stopping writing/correcting, need to sleep)

Denis =G)
----
LOPPSI IS BAD