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."
A lot of very good questions.
The answer to all of them is "We don't know."
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
If $10 gas means that more people around the globe can be free, all of whom are my brothers and sisters (and other gendered siblings), it is a price I am willing to pay.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Oh they are evil! Run for your lives! After Kosovo, Russia is very reluctant to agree on using force based on humanitarian grounds. It is embedded in their rationale now. As for the Chinese, they have a history of not supporting intervention on what they consider other countries internal affairs, unless they are asked to. On the other hand, the Chinese employ 36000 people in the construction sector in Lybia with contracts worth $2.67 billion. It is the same reason why the "West" would not do anything in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, UAE (slave labor and other human rights issues). Every country has their own interests to look after and it is perfectly rational even if it doesn't fill any high moral standards. Calling something good or evil is just being stupid, things are not black or white in the real world.
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.
It just doesn't seem fair.
Bruce Perens.
To compound the issue, it is very, very arguable that the Cold War made the social media possible quicker than not having a Cold War. It pushed the gov. into developing DARPANET, and was at least partially responsible for pushing technology into the mainstream faster. It might have taken another 10-20 years (maybe longer) if the whole world "just got along" after WW2.
And while many people say "if not for war, we could have developed even more", I call BS. Fear and paranoia will always make people spend more money and resources to develop defensive technology than love and peace. That said, a little love and peace would be nice right about now.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
We don't have the infrastructure to reduce our reliance on petroleum...
And of course that precludes building one... I mean, it's not like we learned anything over the last 35 years.. Why change now?
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
By 'everything short of an invasion' we are unquestionably violating Libya's sovereignty. However, there's a pretty big 'we' who are doing this: The League Of Arab States is requesting this, and Arab states are saying they'll *help* enforce a no-fly zone -- not just allow overflights or refueling.
I think unilateral activity -- Iraq invading Kuwait -- or nearly unilateral activity -- the USA, along with a bunch of allies who seemed to be having their arms twisted, invading Iraq -- is not civilized behavior. But at some point, a state's violence against others and against its own citizens becomes unacceptable to observers.
This is war, as you say, and I'm not at all sure it's going to end well. Things like rights and ethics shouldn't be a majority-rule issue, so just because practically everyone from his own citizens, to his neighbors, to countries who have historically had a lot of conflict with him are all saying he has to go isn't in itself a sufficient reason for the UN to pretty much say we're committing ourselves to overthrowing him. But at the same time, you don't just stand around and watch a father beat his children to death, even if he holds that position of power.
I don't like interfering with other countries: I think it's a bad idea and leads to all sorts of unanticipated problems. But I think there are times when *not* interfering is worse. Whether this is one of those times -- and whether it'll actually do any good -- is a much harder question for me.
Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
It violates Libya's sovereignty.
It violates the "sovereignty" of the totally illegitimate dictatorship run by an insane monster.
It is actively invited and indeed demanded by the group which appears to represent the people of Libya.
Why are Ghadafi's interests "sovereign", but the citizens of Libya's interests "non-sovereign"?
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.
Arguably if a genuine civilian uprising were to occur anywhere, it would be inherently legitimate, and if the reprisals were sufficiently disproportionate then intervention would be valid. I would certainly hope that the rest of us would intervene to rescue a rebelling British population from being massacred by a dictatorship if that's what it came to - wouldn't you?
Your argument appears to be that the preferred position is to stand back and allow unarmed or lightly armed civilians who seek to impose democracy to be massacred, because it is more important to recognise the theoretical diplomatic status of brutal regimes. Are you sure that's really how you feel?
Read Pynchon.
Nor -will- you ever get that readiness or that infrastructure unless fuel-prices rise significantly.
The very -reason- you're not able to handle it, is that you're not used to it. Perfectly normal gasoline is over $9/gallon here already, and it's causing pretty close to zero problems.
It's not the price that's the problem, it's the sudden and large fluctuation that's problematic, because it takes time to adapt. (for example, at $10/gallon buying certain kinds of cars become less attractive)
I think it's about time you *started* adapting. It's not as if being dependant on the middle-east is going to be a more attractice proposition in the future, and it's not as if the reserves of oil in the ground are growing.