Slashdot Mirror
UN Backs Action Against Colonel Gaddafi
chielk writes "The UN Security Council has backed a no-fly zone over Libya and 'all necessary measures' short of an invasion 'to protect civilians and civilian-populated areas.' The UK, France and Lebanon proposed the council resolution, with US support."
US controls the UN, US backs dictator for many years until he turns, UN doesn't like dictator now.
Makes sense.
I submitted an article on this as well, so I will just repost the question I posed again.
With the intervention of western countries, do you think this resolution will influence further revolutions across the globe, fueled by the hope that the UN will come to the rescue if the targets of revolt become aggressors similar to Gadhafi?
I am of the opinion we will see more revolutions, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and even possibly Iran. This will get real interesting, especially if places where the oil interest become threatened. $10 a gallon average U.S. gas price this summer anybody? Isn't it interesting that social media and modern technology have done more for the desire for democratization than most of our cold-war efforts ever did? Caveats to the benefits of revolution are, however, numerous.
Who will fill the power vacuum? Will the next party be worse than the prior? Is it worth the bloodshed and genocide? Will the county's stability spiral downward, further lowering standards of living and liberty? Interesting times we live in...
'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
don't be a prick.
The U.S. military does not view a no-fly zone as sufficient to stopping Gadhafi.
Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz told a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Thursday that establishing such a zone "would not be sufficient" to stop the gains made by Gadhafi.
Schwartz told the committee that establishing a no-fly zone would take "upwards of a week."
I hope this helps the rebels, but they have a lot to overcome, yet.
Too late. He already is.
> Russia and China - which often oppose the use of force against a sovereign country as they believe it sets a dangerous precedent - abstained rather than using their power of veto as permanent members.
That's a load of crap, Russia and China don't oppose use of force against a sovereign country.
Just call it what it is, they are fucking evil governments, and they have sympathy towards other evil governments. And they don't want UN to turn against themselves one day.
Yeah yeah, some euro-trash american-left will immediately come out and equate these countries with the evilness of USA. Go fuck yourselves.
Gaddafi threatened to attack foreign civilian planes and boats over the mediterranean if any country attacked his forces.
Surely that helped justify this UN resolution. Yeah, it's a conditional threat based on the result of the resolution, but the fact that he threatens foreign civilians just shows how deranged he is (and underscores the fact that he'll do anything to retain power, which obviously includes slaughtering his own people).
The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
No matter where you stand on the issue of a no-fly zone... I'm conflicted on it myself... it's too late now. It was needed a week ago, at least. Gaddafi has basically won already, crushing the rebels brutally with airpower and pushing them to their last refuge. He doesn't need airpower to beat them now. He has them encircled with superior forces now. Once again, the UN arrives after the damage is already done. If you're placing your hopes in the "international community" to save you from someone like Gaddafi, then you really have no hope at all.
If you're going to do something like a no-fly zone, then above all things, you have to be decisive. Either do it or don't do it, but don't sit around for weeks seeking "consensus". It's too late by then.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
Let's just hope this is not too little, too late because he has shown no mercy for opponents. Meanwhile, rebels are having a few problems lately.
However capturing Benghazi is still not the horizon. The city is too big to be taken easily and I believe that Gaddafi is reluctant about going in and loosing a lot of weaponry and people, especially without the air supremacy.
If he's smart, he can still keep oil fields (somehow it seems that UN resolution was "postponed" until that town is recaptured).
It's not only a no fly zone authorization. As I understood it, this UN resolution permits everything except a foreign invasion of Lybia.
Don't be surprised if planes are soon (or now) attacking Lybian military targets to weaken Gaddafi.
The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
I submitted an article on this as well, so I will just repost the question I posed again. With the intervention of western countries, do you think this resolution will influence further revolutions across the globe, fueled by the hope that the UN will come to the rescue if the targets of revolt become aggressors similar to Gadhafi? I am of the opinion we will see more revolutions, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and even possibly Iran. This will get real interesting, especially if places where the oil interest become threatened. $10 a gallon average U.S. gas price this summer anybody? Isn't it interesting that social media and modern technology have done more for the desire for democratization than most of our cold-war efforts ever did? Caveats to the benefits of revolution are, however, numerous. Who will fill the power vacuum? Will the next party be worse than the prior? Is it worth the bloodshed and genocide? Will the county's stability spiral downward, further lowering standards of living and liberty? Interesting times we live in...
After all these years of doing business with Mr Gadhafi, and now they want to remove him because they are concerned about civilians? I suppose they will impose the same to protect the civilians of Bahrain because of course they want to protect the civilians. I recall the UN did such a good job in Rawanda after the fact. A useless organization of Members (those with Veto) and participants (those who have no choice).
There are a couple of theories. One, it gives hope to people in other nations with horribly incompetent governments, and two, the Libyan revolution is the third in a series partially instigated by Facebook users, which speaks to the burgeoning power of the internet in affecting world politics.
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
You're not wanted... This is bullshit.. They're only trying to reopen the money pipe. Go help the folks Bahrain.. Oh wait.. That's different
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
Internet access in Libya is close to nonexistant. The influence of the Internet on this rebellion was, at best, negligible.
... we'll just bomb 'em into the stone age. Actually, by the time we're done we'll need to bomb them forward into the stone age, likely. Because after all, if you want to institute a no-fly zone, you need to start by taking out the AA equipment so you can patrol the no-fly zone under your own terms.
Of course, then we'll likely end up following the same trajectory that we started ourselves on with the first Iraq war under Bush I. Which of course led eventually to a new endless war started under Bush II and continued further under Bush III. But then again we all love the military-industrial complex and we will stop at nothing to aid it. Sure, we could balance our budget, have the greatest schools and health care in the world, but really, war is just so much more fun.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
...this one is all you. Have at it.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
... maybe at least we can put together a regular expression so the current ruler's name can be full text searched.
How about
((Aa)l-)?[KQG](h|')?[auo]d[d](ao)((f(f)?)|(ph))[yi]
It's news for nerds because events like this actually *are* important. Probably in the grand scheme of things more important than the vast majority of stories. Just because you don't give a fuck about what is going on in the world or would rather read crappy comments on some straight site with a poor comment system, doesn't mean that others should. What better place to read news than here, with the most novel and thorough moderation system on the internet in action? Ben Franklin was a nerd, and so were many of the framers of the U.S. Constitution (That rag that we used to base our government on ). Seems to me that fighting for freedom from tyranny is one of the most universal ideals across all nationalities, religions. Would we mock Jefferson were he around and penning submissions on government to Slashdot? I think not. This matters to me because now we have a third military operation for the U.S, and its real blood that gets spilled, not like some stupid FPS game.... Jeez you'd think more people would give a damn, but then again that's our problem.. we'd rather eat Cheeto's and be told what to worry about rather than thinking for ourselves, and god forbid if the real world gets in the way of what YOU want. Too bad.
'Everything short of an invasion' is rhetoric. This is a declaration of war. It violates Libya's sovereignty. From here on in, its not a question of who is right and who is wrong. It is a question of who applies more force to subdue whom.
Think about it in the context of what would happen if this civilian uprising were occurring in the Britain. The authorities would use varying levels of force to quell the unrest. At times, these levels would be appropriate. At other times, they would be excessive. The question of whether it would be legal or not would hinge on the actions of individuals in the military or police. Not with the over-arching governmental body.
Lets be really clear about what the UN are doing here. They are stepping in to help overthrow Gadhafi. Regardless of whether you like him or not; regardless of whether you are happy with his rule in Libya, he holds that position of power, and you cannot apply your own constitution to overthrow his. To do so is an act of war.
There are days when I hate being a westerner.
Perhaps, but it was still indirectly precipitated by the Egyptian and Tunisian revolutions, which were Internet-triggered. It's followup, and it could still have results down the road.
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
B2 and Tomahawk strikes tonight.. Thats my guess.
At what point to we start to consider the past few years as World War III? Seems to me there's been an ever-increasing global Oil/Islamist War going on. We are pretty much fighting the same thing on 4 continents now. Do we have to wait for Oceania and Antarctica, or can we go ahead and call this WWIII now? Or, is is this just the preamble to the real thing -- it certainly feels like it is.
I hope this turns into another Afghanistan, and we get stuck there for 10 years. The US deserves it, because we just HAVE to be the world's policeman.
Probably also depends on what the countries themselves who are actually enforcing it want to do.
However make no mistake if they decide that they want to smash his ground forces, they can. These days a modern military can use aircraft like precision artillery. The US has already proven this in Iraq and presumably other modern militaries can do the same. So it is no longer a case of "Air power is for smashing infrastructure but is no real threat to mobile forces." Now a few planes armed with the right munitions can smash a division of troops.
Will that happen? No idea. However if Gaddafi makes good on his threat and fires on civilian traffic in the med, you can bet it will. His military will be reduced in size in a big hurry.
That'll get the CNN to cover Libya instead of some little island nobody REALLY cares about.
Now you have 2 problems,
You do realize that "d[d](ao)" means you will have a literal "ddao" in there? And that nobody spells it Aal-Ghaddaoffi?
So I guess you have 3 problems. (One of them is that you're fucking useless with regexes.)
I think what you meant with that was:
([Aa]l-)?[KQG][h']?[auo]dd?[ao](ff?|ph)[yi]
It just doesn't seem fair.
Bruce Perens.
I hope this helps the civilians. They are the ones that need it. Gadhafi caused this by indiscriminately bombing everything. If he hadn't I doubt Russia or China would have let it though.
They finally agreed.
Now lets wait a few more weeks until more discussions take place, more slaps on the wrist are suggested and we can get the actual no fly zone by 2012.
Stalingrad anyone? Benghazi can hold out indefinitely with the help of world, it's a rebel city with a lot of people, all they need is small arms and windows to shoot them out of.
Incidently, I would be ashamed to be an Indian or Brazilian after their abstentions in this vote. Are they really no better than Russia and China?
This may be a dumb question, but why is Gadhafi only a colonel? Couldn't he just promote himself?
Not triggered, facilitated, maybe, but triggered? No.. The misery is what triggered it. And another thing, this ain't over, not even close.. in any of these places. And check out how we are supporting the suppression in Bahrain, for some reason that's off the radar... There's still a big ol' shoe, hanging by its frayed laces..
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
Gas ain't going down. Burning dinosaurs4cash is a time limited model, which is why people are so pissed off about it.
What is interesting is that, hey, we give proles communicatn tech, and whaddiya know, they use it. Well, it seems, and that's going to get better. The cypherpunks were not stupid.
I forget what 8 was for.
Face it. What you said was wrong. Play it off some more if you want. We all know women never admit when they're wrong no matter how obvious that fact is to everyone else.
Don't want to be thought the typical female? Don't act the part. None of us are gonna get any pussy from you (and you're probably an undesirable fatass anyway though your lack of logic suggests maybe this isn't the deal) so really what is your incentive to play coy? Just admit you were wrong.
Someone just lost yet another chance at getting some...
Must be getting really frustrating for you, eh?
I thought Bush got all kinds of hell for doing this exact thing to Saddam after he violated the no fly resolution SEVENTEEN TIMES.... But I just remembered....now we have a Democrat for president ....so never mind.....its all OK.
At least Obama has managed the impossible-seeming feat of making a President of France appear as decisive and effective.
Abstentions to the Security Council vote : Russia, China (no surprises so far), Brazil, India (mmh?), Germany (WTF?).
I hate to be pessimistic about the no-fly-zone. But it seems to me that the Arab governments that backed calls for the UN to impose a no-fly-zone will simply use any foreign military action in Libya as justification for their own plans to intervene in the affairs of other states.
Witness the way Saudi Arabia sent its troops to Bahrain, presumably at the invitation of Bahrain's royal family. The governments in power in those two countries belong to a branch of Islam (Sunni) different from those that dominate the pro-democracy protests in Bahrain and some parts of Saudi Arabia (Shia Muslims). So here we see foreign military intervention being used in support of an unpopular regime as against the possibility of foreign military intervention in Libya being used to support the removal of an unpopular regime.
or bring freedom in any way shape or form. All $10 gas does is cost you and earns the gas companies extra money -- don't drink the koolaid
Does anyone remember what happened last time someone bombed Gaddafi? Ya, 3 tons of C4 were send to N. Ireland. There is a good reason why France and England are currently getting ready to drop bombs as we speak. This resolution means that it is all in for many western powers. They kill him or they are going to be saddled with a whole lot more state sponsored terrorism.
As I read it, all military assets are now valid targets for NATO war planes and naval and land artillery. What has been expressly forbidden is putting boots on the ground.
Standard UN rules apply, no deliberate targeting of civilian infrastructure. I have no illusions that a number of civilians will be killed or hurt as despotic leaders have this nasty habit of placing civilians in harms way to prevent the bombing of military assets.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
As much as I despise the unilateral actions of the previous administration, I bet W. would have parked an aircraft carrier off the coast of Libya the first day and shot down anything that moved after that.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Yes lets,
The UN has authorised the destruction of military assets belonging to the Gaddafi regime. They are intervening in a civil war to bring it to an end, with the victor being the side the UN has chosen (I.E. not the tyrant). FFS this is what the UN security council is there to do.
I'm sorry but you cant have it both ways, with one half of your mouth your lambaste the UN for not taking action, when they do you complain that they are taking too much action. The UN is doing, precisely what the UN is meant to be doing at this point in time.
Except that is not happening here. The UN is intervening in a severely lopsided civil war.
Just what do you think that Gaddafi is doing to those rebels at the moment, I'll give you a clue, he's not inviting them round for tea and crumpets like the UN usually does.
You see, the rebels have actually asked for help, they are glad to receive it or as Amin Nuri, a Libyan said "We want them just to fight him with the planes... and then we will do the rest". Source.
For the record, I'm normally against war but this action could help end one rather then starting another.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Leave Libya alone.
It is an internal matter, and more importantly, its is their Oil, not the UN's.
Which is the real reason why they want too get rid of those countries leaders.
Any country that doesn't trade Oil for Federal Reserve Notes is and always has been a threat.
-Hack
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
If we hadn't unloaded two full clips on Afghanistan and Iraq, we might have had more bullets left for K'daffy.
Aside from that, there's the whole pen vs. sword thing. The revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt are just babies. We don't know what kind of kids or adults they'll be; but so far it looks like they've made more progress in two months than we did with 10 years of US intervention.
Gee. Imagine that.
All I can say is that as much as Obama comes off as "out of the loop", "weak", or even "not caring" it's a moot point. His hands are tied and everybody knows it. We wasted our ammo and our good will during the prior administration.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Disagree. The ground war will be fought by the rebels (with weapons provided by Egypt, funded by the US government). The US will provide air cover remotely via drones and maybe larger equipment already there. As long as the US doesn't have to deal with a ground war, it'll be fine.
If you look at Pearl Harbor, bombings at various embassies, and such, it's clear that the US almost always reacts violently when provoked. Afghanistan was necessary, if only to sate that outburst. A significant majority (well beyond a supermajority) of Americans wanted Bin Laden, and so we went after him.
Unfortunately, Afghanistan was *not* well-planned. Its original goal was "kill Bin Laden", which is a laudable, albeit simple, goal. We got 75% of the way there, and had we focused exclusively on Bin Laden, we'd've probably been able to pull out and go home, our heads held high, a job well done. ... but in 2003, Bush pushed Iraq, made the false claims of WMDs (Powell ruined his reputation, etc, etc), and although there was some dissent about Iraq (I recall a 10s-of-thousands anti-war rally in DC during the days leading up to the war) it was not sufficient to sway anyone's mind. THAT was the point at which we lost sight of Afghanistan, and that's when it became a quagmire. Iraq, meanwhile, was as poorly planned as Afghanistan, and the mushy Iraq war + the mushy Afghanistan war resulted in us getting stuck in both places.
Had we focused on one, we'd've had enough drive to get out quickly and easily.
Dick Cheney, is that you?
Did you forget to take your meds? Again?
tells you the straight truth when your personal cowardice would prefer to whitewash it
Reiser? Is that you?
Its a crazy fine line that must be followed in order to pull this off. Western powers may have been secretly hoping that the rebellion would like to be independently successful, but Ghadaffi had too many cards to play (guns, planes, helicopters, artillery, tanks, plus a private security force). Air power alone could have given him a high hand. It would have been better to see this passed 8 days ago, but it didn't. The Arab League had to be in, otherwise, fingers would have been pointed, almost right away 'see what the western countries are doing in the middle east again...'. Its unfortunate that the rebels were not more successful, its unfortunate that the situation had to become so dire before the resolution was passed. So exactly where can western powers operate now? Can they just take out planes, helicopters and tanks, and that's it? How far is too far? Find 3 people, and all 3 will give you a different answer, and will argue for a week that they are right (and all 3 will be making valid points). And who is going to be the bad guy here? The US? Britain? France? Members of the Arab League? From what I've heard, its going to be the US (again). I don't think they really wanted to be it (again). If it is the Americans, and they are successful, will they be remembered, or will they once again, be viewed as a pariah in 5 years. If they are unsuccessful, its almost a guarantee that the Ghadaffi regime will view them as the land of evil. This is where it all gets ugly.
Gas is expensive!
"Why don't you try riding a bike?"
Some of us don't live in a city. Most of us don't live within biking distance to work.
"Move closer to work!"
Why don't you try ponying up the cash to move to a new home -- in the city, no less -- during a good time, let alone during a craptastic recovery of about the worst "recession" that you can get.
"Well the USA shouldn't have developed so far spread out."
No country in the world, Japan included, is even close to 100% rail-connected. Lots of places need lots of cars, even in the densest countries. And really, sit down and think how difficult it will be to fundamentally restructure 250+ years of heavy urbanization in the third-largest, third-most populous country in the world. That stuff doesn't happen overnight. It doesn't even happen in even a decade.
Realistically, the most positive thing that will come out of ridiculously high gas prices, in my opinion, will be
1.) Americans will become a little less selfish; they're going to have to start interacting with others, helping more -- maybe even carpool. It'll suck, and I'm all about individualism, but I think we (I'm an American, too) could use a little bit more community spirit. We always get some after a huge disaster, and then quickly forget it after suffering through the craptastic government's overreactions and failings.
2.) Freight rail traffic will skyrocket. This'll take semis off the roads (though semi-truck drivers need jobs, too....). With fewer people driving and fewer semis, driving won't be so bad.
3.) Maybe the electric car movement will finally get to the point that they'll become practical for most people, with recharge stations all over the place.
Of course, there will be a gigantic amount of cons that will also come with high gas prices. Many more cons than pros, in the short term at the very least.
You have it all wrong Sir. Our finest men in uniform is well equiped and trained to hold the line in both Iraq and Afghanistan. The real problem is that the rest of the world (among many US politicians) don't give a shit about achiving victory. You don't win wars with a squeamish policy.
Life is not for the lazy.
Because we (the western nations) have so much trust in the arab world right now. Every kid that dies (and there will be innocent victims, let's not kid ourselves here) will be further proof that all of the west is evil.
You can't go in and fix a country if you still have two horribly-gone-wrong attempts of that running. Thinking that you can is hubris.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
People who are having trouble affording food would already have dropped off of Facebook and Twitter. They would not be making heavy use of the Internet from their smartphones.
I've been to Tunisia. The folks who had social networking were in Carthage and Tunis, and lived at the French standard. The hungry folks haven't just become hungry recently.
Bruce Perens.
If we (the militant cyclists) can get more people to stop depending on their cars for their daily commutes, the demand for gasoline will drop. And if the demand for gasoline drops, its price will also go down. And as a side win, we will all live in (or transit through) less traffic-dense, more polite, more humane cities.
What, did you miss the previous installment?
Why the military didn't have a plan in place and ready to turn on once the word was given?
Does it seem like they are delaying so Col. G. can get prepared for when the No Fly Zone action starts?
That, and many nerds are card-carrying members of the military industrial complex. Jokes aside though, military action against a man who orders crowds of protesters to be bombed is not at all a bad thing. Remember people: there's a difference between the civilized world and the rest of the world.
They just want to secure access to oil for western countries, thats clear.
There has been what ? at most some thousand deaths in Lybia and the UN wants to "protect the civilians" ? it makes me laugh...
Where was the UN when the Hutus killed nearly 800'000 people ? no oil, few ressources there, you can kill everyone.nobody cares.
Where was the UN when the 800'000 civilian tutsis were killed in Rwanda ?
There is no oil and few ressources in Rwanda so you can kill everyone nobody cares.
A few deaths in Lybia and the whole world talks about it every day.
"protect the civilians" my ass.
I'm sick of this world where money > all.
But if we bomb Gadaffi we're as bad as him!
# Kum ba ya, my lord, kum ba yaa...
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
The poor bastards.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
I liked the old MIlitary icon, it being a geeky reference to 300 and "SPARTAAAA!!!" The new shiny icon looks like a weird hybrid between a Hellenian and a Roman helmet.
I am under the impression UN forces are taking out missile defense systems first. That's what a no fly zone is, no way to get shot down, then a sea, ground and air offensive to clear the skies.
What a disaster eh? Constant worrying, if this was 1985 we would maybe hear a little news story about this, but you'll guess it today the Media will be all over this. Something the internet forces Media to do, make people aware of worldly conflicts, events, etc...
The U.S. isn't supporting repression in Bahrain. Both Obama and Clinton have told them publicly to back off. What else would you have the U.S. do? Pull out the Fleet and put them where exactly? Send in the Marines and learn'em a lesson? Whack Saudi Arabia for sending in their troops? Hmmm....no, it sounds too delicious, and they do control the oil price.
To Whom? We need suppressed energy technology out in the open NOW. These guys are old school Oil blood Money snake types. I guess with that system pulling all the strings we see things like this going on. Rather than admit an Alien presence, we are left to kill each other. What a racket!
"Once again the brave coalition of the willing have decided that they must step in and take action to protect the oilfields^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H citizens of (turns to aide) er.. where are we going this week Marty ?"
"Now back to the sports round up with Siegfried."
Has the nation "Terror" already capitulated?
No?
How about the other ongoing one, "Drugs"?
Oh. Guess you Americans are too squeamish then. I don't think you'll win victory against "Poverty" either...
Third military operation? How about those drone strikes in pakistan? Or don't they count?
They weren't that quick when the Serbs were bombing the Bosnians, or when the Zionists were bombing Gaza recently.
The real problem is that the rest of the world (among many US politicians) don't give a shit about achiving victory.
The problem is you'd need about 400000 foreign soldiers in Afghanistan to "make it peaceful", and the locals would still not like the occupation. Just watch the documentaries Restrepo and Armadillo and it becomes pretty clear that at least in Afghanistan the Alliance has no fucking clue what they actually want to achieve.
In the movies you can see things like 20 year old GIs trying to negotiate the building of roads, schools, or wells with 70 year old, bearded Afghan peasants who keep mentioning that if they cooperate some Taleban will slit their throats after the handful of soldiers have left. It's a joke. In no country in the world would these twenty-something boy soldiers, who leave after a few weeks or months anyway, be taken seriously by the local mayor.
This allegation was one of the original administration talking points, and still gets repeated over and over throughout the mainstream media, but it's simply, demonstrably, false.
Wikileaks has (at least) around a quarter of a million documents, of which only a handful, a few thousand, have been released by them. After careful vetting and redaction by people like the Washington Post and New York Times.
If they deserve criticism at all, it's for keeping the vast majority of the material they have unreleased, not for this mythical 'indiscriminate release' that did not, in fact, happen.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Those drones are controlled by the same people who are operating drones in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other AORs. It does not require any extra military operational activity; merely requires reallocation of current assets.
On a side note, watching live Predator/UAV feeds while I was in the military was pretty cool. Just like war it's 99% boredom, but that 1% of chaos is outstandingly entertaining.
What else can happen when an unstoppable force collides with an immovable object?
Through this logic, a cop shooting a violent criminal makes the cop a criminal too...?
Defending those who cannot defend themselves is one of the more honorable behaviors a human being can exhibit. Idly watching while others suffer, yet you have the ability to make a change...now there is something equivalently wrong.
What else can happen when an unstoppable force collides with an immovable object?
For once Europe can do the fighting.
I seriously doubt they have the capability, or the competence, but regardless... this is their show.
NO US AIRPOWER TO PROTECT EUROPES OIL SUPPLY!
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
If this is any consolation, war on Reality is just going fine.
What modern Obelix would say today? Of course, "Those crazy Americans!".
The UN? Really? How...retro.
Seriously, the UN has absolutely no relevance anymore. When was the last time a 3rd world dictator actually listened to anything they said?
...is war by committee. War by committee is the prescription for defeat.
Regards;
All three points are almost non-issue compared to lack of dedicated cycle paths (and done properly like in Denmark).
1. It'd be good sometimes, but.. You just get used to it. Know the limits, do not cycle too hard and then your'e at work dry and happy.
2. Not an issue at all - get a simple bike and u-lock with extra cable to lock wheels.
3. The same.. simple bike + good lock.
News for nerds.
the real lesson here is that revolution, in any country, depends upon food
the sad truth is you can pretty much abuse a populace for decades, and they won't revolt. but as soon as they can't eat, people start fighting. that was true of the french revolution as well
it also is a lesson for all the idiots in the usa thinking revolution is an option. americans are fat and well fed. they won't revolt about anything, no matter how abusive
another thing to note: food prices are continuing to lurch upwards around the world. we are going to see more revolutions, more unrest. even in democracies
people will put up with a lot of things. but when they can't feed their children, when their stomachs are empty, they start behaving in really desperate ways. and unfortunately, we have been living, and growing, as a population, worldwide, for far too long on cheap easy oil. take a look at how oil is used in the production of fertilizer sometime, and think about what happens when that fertilizer can't be made, as the era of cheap easy oil comes to an end
lots of revolutions and unrest facing us globally in the coming months. china, india, brazil, etc: not poor places anymore, oil use skyrockets. and the stuff just gets harder to dig up/ process. meaning we are talking about pinches in poor parts of the world between burgeoning populations and the cost of food. people living barely on the edge of putting food in their stomachs on meager incomes. a place like the philippines is way overpopulated: it imports tons of rice from thailand. bangladesh, nigeria, etc.: wherever you have poverty and huge populations, we are looking at civil strife on a huge order in coming months as food prices soar
of course, people have been warning about this for decades. but we are finally hitting a wall between population growth and the cost of food. and its going to get ugly. people need to learn to have less kids. unfortunately, for many people, that lesson has to be learned the hard way
maybe those mayans were right about 2012 after all
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Wish we would just let the Libyans fight it out. There's no reason we need to spend our money and resources fighting it out for them.
Or at least let the Arab states come to their rescue...or not. But spend our US dollars on making our country better...not bombing shit.
They had a few centrifuges, out of the hundreds needed to produce significant enriched uranium, which there was no evidence they had any of. And even that was a surprise because we didn't know they had done that much until Qadhafi invited the inspectors into facilities we didn't know existed.
Which means if he'd been anywhere near developing a bomb, he could have kept quiet for a while and caught the world off-guard by announcing a nuclear deterrent. If he felt threatened by the example of Iraq, it's because he had no chance of following the example of North Korea. Since as we all know by now, the one state in the Axis of Evil that was attacked was the one that didn't have an active nuclear program.
So instead, Qadhafi gave up something that wasn't going anywhere or doing him any good anyway and got in exchange, because he'd technically done as we asked and come clean, the grudging support of the U.S.A. Pure win for Libya. A demonstration of the positive effects of invading Iraq? Ha! We got played.
Which, by the way, is always how Qadhafi deals. The reason Libya has so few allies is because every ally they've had, they've screwed over.
So what I'm saying is that back in 2003 (Libya actually initiated talks well before Saddam was captured, which was in Dec 2003), when Libya and only Libya came forward and said they were abandoning their weapons program, your response should have been suspicion, not "yay, the domino theory works!"
Also, and more importantly for today, be highly suspicious of any deals Qadhafi tries to make.
I only hope that this decision isn't too late for the rebellion. U.N./U.S. support for a home-grown revolution is the way things should be done, and can end with us being well-loved by the people. If it doesn't work, we'll be thought of as the too-little too-late do-nothings who didn't help and let them be crushed.
The enemies of Democracy are
Idly watching while others suffer, yet you have the ability to make a change...now there is something equivalently wrong.
I believe such sentiment was later used to excuse the horrors of colonialism, after all we saving their immortal souls. Be wary of your self righteousness.
I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
Few people are rioting in Saudi Arabia because they know what will happen if they do.
Of all the middle eastern countries Saudi Arabia is the most extreme if you are talking about cutting the heads off of adulterers severing the arms of poor thieves or lashing the bare back of petty perpetrators. But it's all right, at least the rulers are capitalists who don't mind stealing from their own people to share it with other foreign capitalists.
If ever there was an uprising in Saudi Arabia you can rest assured that it would be brutally put down and the West would do nothing about it but make pronouncements.
The 'West' (by that I mean the rich people who rule those countries) are not fighting for democracy. Nor do they care about the civilian population. They are fighting for a pale imitation of democracy behind which their real purpose can hide. They want more money, more markets, more cheap labour, and they don't want to share it out equally.
Is what the on looks like.
(This is what the victory on nouns looks like)
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
While I agree that Gaddafi is a bloodthirsty, ruthless, dictator, we need the media and political powers that be to lose the lies about protecting civilians. Tell it like it is ... that the western world sees backing this rebel action as an opportunity to depose a thorn in their side(s) and gain more power and control over the country. Let's not pretend it's about protecting people because we ignore other human suffering around the world on an all-too-regular basis.
The PMS Monitor for Men - Keep tabs on your loved one's cycle and stay aware of impending mood changes. bit.ly/h4f06y
That sound wasn't a Libyan fighter going past, was it?
http://www.alan.com/2011/03/18/no-fly-zone-could-cost-up-to-1-2-billion-a-month/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+liberaland+(Alan+Colmes+Liberaland) Yet another reason to not get involved in another country's civil war.
What about when the US People revolt against their government. Will the UN step in to help The People or will they step in to just control the masses and help the government?
.if the US had finished the job they started against Gaddafi in the 80's. Think of the lives would would have saved....
Joe Investor
I think that in the long term, it is not necessary for one country to interfere in the internal affairs of another. This could be the start of another long term committment by the western armed forces.
Also whos to say that there are no fundamental or anarchist groups among the opposition who wont hijack the movement. This trend has been clearly visible in Iran (student protests hijacked by armed workers and the exile of nearly all non hardliners), Afghanistan (Talibs) etc. This is seen even in the Naxalite (at Singur) movement of India (where I come from). Muslim fundamentalists mixing with armed tribals and getting the support of opportunistic parties ...
The opposition to the Vedanta plant in Orissa state (supposed real life Avtars) is the only case which goes against this trend but it has now died down. So we must realise what has sustained and driven the revolts so far.
OK