I don't really know what the import of this is, but insofar as it appears to be making things really difficult and uncomfortable for the rest of the "Western" powers, it is France at its finest.
Doesn't this make military intervention more likely? Seems like typical Sarkozcy, trying to be the man of action while mucking things up.
...and if Italy follows suit, we have a Frappuccino! ...tres desole, mon grand.
Somewhat contrary to the NYT, the AFP has it from someone in Sarkozy's circle that he's trying to convince his EU partners that targeted airstrikes are the way to go.
Its always about selling weapons. Russia has the biggest slice of Libyan military pie, beating out the French last go around. What better way for France to show that Russian military junk is just that, junk by destroying it with French military junk.
Trying to soothe the national psyche for fucking up Algeria so bad.
Or the frogs are just more shrewd and recognize Gadaffi is a lost cause... Anyway, didn't the UK send in the SAS to assist to rebels?
Second D-one. It's also about oil (and gas). http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=134103034I would guess that it is illegal, or at best legally grey, how to pay for oil coming from territory that is controlled by rebels. Whereas, if there is a recognized government, no problem. You can buy the oil -- win. You develop cozy ties with the hoped-for new regime -- win (if they win). And you can sell arms to the rebels, getting back the money you just spend on oil -- win.
A triple win. Does this make Sarkozy the new Charlie Sheen?
Kind of reminds me of this:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Alliance
Sarkozy est triple-gagnante.
I've never been to France, so maybe someone can help me out, but isn't that where the naked ladies dance?
Leonard believes in international law?
IOZ IOZ quite contraryHow does your garden grow?
Eh, business is business. The rest of the flock will soon follow. It'll behoove Israel to open some channels before it's too late..
Kindly Msr:What does it mean when the NYTimes pulls a piece entitled: Dalai Lama Gives Up Political Role in Tibet - NYTimes.com(3/10/2011)?I went back this afternoon and even entered the complete http...r+1&hp code and 'poof'.No record of any such article by Msrs. Jim Yardley and Edward Wong.Could it have been due to this one line: "In Beijing, the Dalai Lama's announcement was met with blunt criticism by the Foreign Ministry spokeswoman, Jiang Yu. 'We think these are his tricks to deceive the international community,' she said"?Please adviseXO
Can't say I'm happy about this French move. Seems to me that it'll only make it easier to stumble into yet another completely stupid bomb-fest. Have you seen the WaPo lately? I don't know if they're worried about the size of their dicks, or their investments in BAE and Northrop Grumman, or both, but those buffet table Napoleons are frantically trying to gin up -- again! -- an imperial adventure. (But this one will be easy, honest!) It can only be a matter of hours before Fred Hiatt begins a screed with, "If even the French have taken action, it's vital that we..."-- sglover
It's a shame that the story doesn't mention the arms deal that France signed with Libya in the last decade. They're trying to have it both ways and I'm sure they'll try and influence whatever state or non-state the rebels come up with.
Post a Comment