The Mali conflict

We're getting involved for the same reason they got involved in our recent conflicts.

So young soldiers can get up early to watch Her Majesty's Royal Marines do PT. (A girl in Afghanistan has so little to look forward to.)
 
Could you give examples of these assets you're talking about? What assets does the UK, Canada, and US have that the French don't have?

This may be shocking to you, but the UK, Canada, the US, and the French aren't keeping me fully informed of the exact details, capabilities, and locations of all their military assets.

But it's obvious that the US's capabilities are far vaster than Frances. A quick example would be aircraft carriers - if France requires an aircraft carrier in the region, France ties up its sole aircraft carrier - assuming its available and not needed elsewhere. The US, OTOH, has something like a dozen carriers - and the US carriers dwarf the French carrier.
 
Mali is an important trade partner to France. France is part of the European Union. Canada recognizes England's queen, making her the commander in chief of its forces. America is Canada's next door neighbor. We have units based in Europe specifically for quick deployment to situations in Africa. In this world, there is no such thing as "not our problem." The industrialized countries of the world have fates that are intertwined, and they therefore share many of the same regional interests. I could probably draw 20 more arbitrary ties between the various countries involved, but the fact is that we tend to not work as individuals.

There's a book called "Not On Our Watch" by Don Cheadle. Though it deals primarily with the genocide in Darfur, it's a good start for anyone with a desire to know what the hell is going on in Africa and why it is in fact our problem.
 
And to expand to that, yes France is very capable. You won't find many forces more suitable for situations like this than the French Foreign Legion, for example. But as was mentioned, a couple extra aircraft carriers in the area can certainly make their jobs easier. It's also worth mentioning that aircraft carriers tend to have very capable medical facilities. A mobile, floating, well protected hospital within helicopter range from a combat zone where injuries, both civilian and military, are inevitable, is a pretty handy thing to have around. Carriers also have massive desalination capacities. A steady supply of fresh water within drop range of troops doesn't hurt.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ledboots
Did you read my post at all?.I posted the first 4 sources; there were thousands. Open google and type in "citizen casualties by drones" or some similar thing.
Yes. You just said scores and now it's "thousands". Many of these "thousands" you're claiming aren't mainstream sources so they don't count.

I read syndicated columnists every day. I don't see E.J. Dionne, Froma Harrop, Richard Cohen, Joe Conason, or other Liberal writers talking about it the way they should. Even Charles Krauthammer is quiet about it. I don't recall it being mentioned much in the debates. It's obviously being talked about a small fraction of what it should be.
 
True. It's shameful that anyone is talking about anything other than drones.
If you knew anything about me, you'd know I think factory farms and overpopulation are the two biggest problems in the world today. Much more newsworthy than drones. Your pointless post adds to your post count. Congratulations.
 
If you knew anything about me, you'd know I think factory farms and overpopulation are the two biggest problems in the world today. Much more newsworthy than drones. Your pointless post adds to your post count. Congratulations.

Thank you. My post count is very, very important to me. I hope to set a record soon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: das_nut
If overpopulation is the bigger problem then shouldn't war be encouraged? I can erase more future ecological footprints with a bullet than anyone else can with a lifetime of veg*nism.