HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » France: US helping suppor...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 04:28 PM

 

France: US helping support Mali operation

Source: AP

BAMAKO, Mali — France's foreign minister said Sunday that the United States is providing communications and transport help for an international military intervention aimed at wresting Mali's north out of the hands of Islamist extremists.

Laurent Fabius said the three-day-old, French-led military operation has succeeded in halting the extremists' advance, which had prompted the intervention. He sought to stress that the operation is gaining international backing, despite concern about the risks of the mission in a stretch of lawless desert in weakly governed country.

"We have the support of the Americans for communications and transport," Fabius said on RTL radio Sunday. Britain, Denmark, and other European countries also are helping, Fabius said. He gave no details about the backup.

U.S. officials on Saturday said they had offered to send drones to Mali. British Prime Minister David Cameron agreed to send aircraft to help transport troops.

Read more here: http://www.adn.com/2013/01/13/2751019/troops-head-to-mali-as-battle.html#storylink=cpy




Read more: http://www.adn.com/2013/01/13/2751019/troops-head-to-mali-as-battle.html



You didn't think the US would miss a chance to help drop bombs did you?

41 replies, 3055 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 41 replies Author Time Post
Reply France: US helping support Mali operation (Original post)
Arctic Dave Jan 2013 OP
raidert05 Jan 2013 #1
pampango Jan 2013 #2
raidert05 Jan 2013 #10
cstanleytech Jan 2013 #3
Arctic Dave Jan 2013 #4
cstanleytech Jan 2013 #11
Dokkie Jan 2013 #5
Arctic Dave Jan 2013 #6
octothorpe Jan 2013 #8
Arctic Dave Jan 2013 #9
cstanleytech Jan 2013 #12
John2 Jan 2013 #13
dipsydoodle Jan 2013 #22
DCBob Jan 2013 #18
Arctic Dave Jan 2013 #19
DCBob Jan 2013 #20
Arctic Dave Jan 2013 #21
DCBob Jan 2013 #23
Arctic Dave Jan 2013 #24
zellie Jan 2013 #7
samsingh Jan 2013 #14
Arctic Dave Jan 2013 #16
samsingh Jan 2013 #25
Enrique Jan 2013 #15
Arctic Dave Jan 2013 #17
samsingh Jan 2013 #26
Arctic Dave Jan 2013 #27
samsingh Jan 2013 #29
Arctic Dave Jan 2013 #30
samsingh Jan 2013 #31
Alamuti Lotus Jan 2013 #32
samsingh Jan 2013 #35
Arctic Dave Jan 2013 #33
samsingh Jan 2013 #34
Arctic Dave Jan 2013 #36
samsingh Jan 2013 #37
Arctic Dave Jan 2013 #38
samsingh Jan 2013 #39
Arctic Dave Jan 2013 #41
zellie Jan 2013 #28
Comrade Grumpy Jan 2013 #40

Response to Arctic Dave (Original post)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 04:49 PM

1. hooyah

 

kill them terrorizers!!!---on a side not the rest of the world is going to be really pissed at America for its war on terror in the coming years, because much like the Flu virus this year, terrorist groups have evolved and spread all across the middle east and Africa.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to raidert05 (Reply #1)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 05:03 PM

2. If them terroriizers are going to be mad at the US, imagine how they feel about the socialists in

France who are actually doing the fighting?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pampango (Reply #2)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 06:05 PM

10. I'm sure....

 

To them any help from the US is just as much an excuse to hate us and want us dead, we could be giving the Mali people food and water and they would hate our guts for it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arctic Dave (Original post)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 05:12 PM

3. Hey Dave, please highlight the relevant section

where it said the US is helping with dropping bombs as I keep missing it, thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cstanleytech (Reply #3)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 05:18 PM

4. It is in the title.

 

France has bombed, I believe four cities so far and have carried out military raids in N.Mali.

Or, are you being obtuse? Just because we are not using our warplanes we are not helping in the actual military intervention type of thing?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arctic Dave (Reply #4)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 06:43 PM

11. Oh my apologies I thought you said we were bombing them.

I reread it and saw you wrote that we are "helping" them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arctic Dave (Original post)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 05:24 PM

5. How about we just stay out of it

 

If people within a country is strong enough to overthrow their corrupt leadership, let em do it. We now intervene is some and not in others depending on which govt is our friend.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dokkie (Reply #5)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 05:31 PM

6. I agree. We should have stayed out of all of our "fashionable wars"

 

We could be using all the money we are spending interfering in other countries politics to do good here but that would make too much sense.

Just another war so rich people can steal other people's resources.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arctic Dave (Reply #6)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 05:56 PM

8. Do you think the people of Mali will be better off under the control of the Islamic Rebels?

Or do you believe that it's not really radical Islamic rebels who are leading this fight? Or perhaps you don't care either way? I'm not being snarky or confrontational either, just curious about where you're coming from on this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to octothorpe (Reply #8)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 06:05 PM

9. Will they be better off? Hard to say one way or another.

 

But, is that why we are there? I will say this, history is a pretty good indicator of our purposes when we engage in military endeavors and it has shown that we are least concerned when it comes to the hardships of people if they are in trouble.

France itself said it would not interfere unless it's interest were at stake. What changed their mind and why are we involved in their personal conflict?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arctic Dave (Reply #9)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 06:53 PM

12. Meh, I admit its a toss up Dave.

If we dont assist then we risk being condemned by some for not providing assistance as well as a possible repeat of Afghanistan when the Taliban took over and if we do assist then we risk being condemned for interfering.
I am just glad its not my call to make in the end.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arctic Dave (Reply #9)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 07:41 PM

13. The way that

 

I understand this is Mali was once controled by France before they gained independence. Mali was moving towards a Democracy before the military established a coup. The military set up a puppet government and some of the units that helped to bring about the coup had a falling out with other military personnel that bought about this coup. The groups that had the falling out aligned themselves with Islamic extremists which included Al Qaeda. These groups were in the rural parts of Mali and they want to establish Sharia Law in all of Mali which threatens other groups in Mali that follow other religions such as Christians. France was asked in by the current Government of Mali since they are Allies, sort of like Israel is to the United States. So France has a legitimate reason to aid their allies. It is probably why the U.S. wants to enter in other African Countries. France asked the African Union but they want enter the fray until a later date because they are not prepared. Meanwhile according to France, the Islamists were making too many gains and they had to intervene. The U.S. interest is fighting Al Qaeda where ever they show up. I figure that is the entire interests of the West. Furthermore, where there is Gold, it is worth the West's efforts. The only problem I have is it needs to benefit all the people of Mali and not just the elites.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to John2 (Reply #13)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 12:35 PM

22. Don't confuse Toureg nationlists with Islamists.

The original issue was the Touregs wanting an independent state. The two groups , ex-Algerian and "Al Qaeda" wanting to establish Sharia law are a minority who are being used as the reason for western involvement which is to actually protect economic interests in there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arctic Dave (Reply #6)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 12:01 PM

18. "Just another war so rich people can steal other people's resources." huh??

Mali is one of the poorest nations on the planet. Their meager resources aren't worth fighting over.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCBob (Reply #18)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 12:05 PM

19. And when you want to dominate an enire region you take the good and the bad.

 

Being poor doesn't mean their are not resources to steal, it just means the people are not always a reciepient of the wealth.

The country you are in is a good example.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arctic Dave (Reply #19)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 12:20 PM

20. Perhaps... but they are not in Mali to steal their resources.

they have very little which is the core of the problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCBob (Reply #20)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 12:24 PM

21. France says different.

 

It must be worth their while to militarily intervene. And we are helping them do it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arctic Dave (Reply #21)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 12:42 PM

23. France says they are there to "steal their resources" ??

What little they have is mostly agricultural. They do have some gold mines also but those are not controlled by France. There is business going on there between France and Mali but I think that benefits both countries. I think France sees that as worth protecting plus an obligation to assist a former colony from a major tragedy that could spill out over the entire region.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCBob (Reply #23)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 12:49 PM

24. It seems this is spill over from another country.

 

Perhaps they should consider that before they bomb other countries.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arctic Dave (Original post)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 05:48 PM

7. Western Hegemony.

 

nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arctic Dave (Original post)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 10:05 PM

14. good. this is important

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samsingh (Reply #14)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 11:50 AM

16. Why?

 

How is it affecting you or our country? Or France, other then, as they said, "thier interest"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arctic Dave (Reply #16)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 01:49 PM

25. innocent people are getting slaughtered and this continues in every country unless its stopped

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arctic Dave (Original post)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 10:51 AM

15. this crisis is a consequence of the Libya intervention

i wonder what the consequences of this Mali intervention will be?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Enrique (Reply #15)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 11:52 AM

17. When it comes to bombing other countries, Obama is a lot like Wayne LaPierre.

 

The obvious answer is to bomb more countries.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arctic Dave (Reply #17)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 01:49 PM

26. would you prefer that hundreds of thousands be massacred by thugs armed by

other countries?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samsingh (Reply #26)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 02:31 PM

27. Like what happened in Iraq?

 

Can you point to another place where this happened and we intervened?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arctic Dave (Reply #27)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 05:01 PM

29. i think we saved hundreds of thousands in Libya

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samsingh (Reply #29)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 05:34 PM

30. Of what? Unicorns.

 

I believe the moon is made of cheese.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arctic Dave (Reply #30)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 11:30 PM

31. people - you can't seriously not know that we stopped Gadaffi from killing entire villages

if you don't there's no point in this discussion

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samsingh (Reply #31)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 01:12 AM

32. Casualty figures exaggerated, says Ministry

 

During the revolution, 4,700 people died and 2,100 went missing, according to official figures issued by the Ministry of Martyrs and Missing Persons.

Ever since the end of the eight-month conflict that overthrew Qaddafi, there have been wildly different casualty estimates. Initially officials believed that some 50,000 had perished, a figure which was later revised down to 25,000. These latest statistics have been compiled after careful research by the ministry, but do not to include the final figure for fatalities on the Qaddafi side.

Miftah Duwadi, the Deputy Minister of Martyrs & Missing Persons told the Libya Herald that the numbers for revolutionary losses are still being checked but officials do not expect any major changes.

“I can’t tell you the exact figure but, as of now, the number of martyrs from the side of revolutionaries is in the range of 4,700″, said Duwadi. “But the number of missing persons from both the sides (Qaddafi forces and revolutionaries) is around 2,100. We are working hard to finish the final numbers. It is very important for the reconciliation process as well, that we know the exact (total) losses.”

At the height of the conflict, the National Transitional Council estimated that tens of thousands had been killed by Qaddafi’s forces, while the former regime accused the revolutionaries and NATO of being responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians. The Ministry’s research so far suggests that the death toll for the old regime may be about the same as among revolutionaries, if not indeed less.

http://www.libyaherald.com/2013/01/07/casualty-figures-exaggerated-says-ministry/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Alamuti Lotus (Reply #32)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 10:26 AM

35. again - we are talking about what was about to transpire

Gaddafi's forces were turned back from invading towns where many would have been killed without Nato involvement

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samsingh (Reply #31)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 10:21 AM

33. Considering he wasn't doing any of that how can you possibly claim

 

that he was going to do that?

Your fantsies of false heroism are astounding.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arctic Dave (Reply #33)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 10:25 AM

34. what's astounding is that the Gaddaffi forces were about to invade a town in Libya

and were turned back by Nato bombing.

what fantasy do you have - the forces would have gone in and talked to the people in the town?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samsingh (Reply #34)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 10:28 AM

36. You said he was going to kill "hundreds of thousands".

 

That never happend. Why? Because he never had te capability to do it.


Where you as concerned when the "rebels" destroyed other towns?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arctic Dave (Reply #36)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 10:36 AM

37. he didn't do it because of the nato bombing

at that time he had tanks, artillary and soldiers. there are youtube pictures of the soldier convey heading to the town prior to being pushed back

yes, i was very disturbed by the brutality of the rebels and towns they attacked. they too should be stopped.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samsingh (Reply #37)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 10:42 AM

38. I don't think you understand what it takes to "kill hundreds of thousands"

 

You are just trying to make yourself feel better with hyperbole.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arctic Dave (Reply #38)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 01:34 PM

39. are you going to truly differentiate between tens of thousands versus hundreds of thousands?

i'm not sure where you're going with this argument anyone.

Nato involvement saved Libyan lives. Are you saying, we should have let whatever number of people that were saved die at the hand of Kaddafi ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samsingh (Reply #39)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 05:17 PM

41. You must have turned your TV after NATO got involved.

 

Lots of people still died and are still dying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arctic Dave (Original post)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 02:34 PM

28. Mali's gone.

 

It's only a matter of time before the country will be under sharia law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arctic Dave (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 02:47 PM

40. The Telegraph: "Mali: al-Qaeda have numerous options for retaliation"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/mali/9801339/Mali-al-Qaeda-have-numerous-options-for-retaliation.html

When President Francois Hollande launched France's military campaign in Mali, he immediately ordered tighter security in Paris and a failed bid to rescue a hostage as far away as Somalia. Those facts drove home the central risk of this venture: al-Qaeda and its allies have numerous options for retaliation. They will have used their 10 months of control over northern Mali to prepare for the moment when their dominance would finally be challenged.

Mr Hollande will be most preoccupied by the fact that "al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb" (AQIM) currently holds seven French hostages. About five other Europeans are also believed to be in their hands, giving them a dozen or so Western captives. Ensuring their safety will be a key aim of the campaign. But AQIM may try to widen the war by opening new fronts inside Mali. An experienced aid worker voiced the fear that operatives have already infiltrated the capital, Bamako, where they could try to carry out attacks.

In a country as vast and as sparsely populated as Mali, front-lines and fixed positions mean little. Guerrillas who have suffered the attentions of the French air force can retreat into the Saharan hinterland, before outflanking their enemies and striking in unexpected locations. That appeared to take place on Monday when Islamist fighters raided the town of Diabaly, inside an area of southern Mali once presumed to be under government control. Having been pounded by air strikes and the national army in the central region, AQIM and its allies seem to have retreated westwards, into neighbouring Mauritania, before turning south into Mali and striking behind the supposed front-line. France detected this move and the Islamist gunmen in Diabaly were the main target of Monday's air raids. The aim will be to prevent them from pressing further south and threatening the main highway that links Bamako with the rest of Mali.

Mr Hollande will soon have an agonising decision to take. Is France content merely to halt the Islamist advance and weaken their hold over the north – or will this air campaign be the prelude to a general offensive designed to break AQIM's grip over Mali altogether? Is the objective simply to stop the extremists, or retake the north? If the former, the job could be left half done. If the latter, Mr Hollande risks a protracted campaign.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread