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."
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
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.
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
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
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!
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.
Oh, shut up. The US was perfectly willing to remove Qaddafi in the 80's, and made a credible attempt to kill him. It's been held back by the Europeans, the UN, and the Arab League until it was politically chic to oppose Qaddafi, and only now are they okay with such things.
The idea of the UN turning against its members with permanent vetoes - in this case, both of who are on the edge of superpower status - is hilarious.
...this one is all you. Have at it.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
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.
I don't know if it is that. I think Russia and China know who the winners of the Qaddafi vs the Rebels will be and it won't be the rebels. So they don't want to piss the winners off.
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.
China isn't abstaining, they are directly funding the US and its wars. China has no issue with this, in fact - they encourage it.
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.
My highly developed cynicism sez we let Tunisia, Pakistan and Egypt off the hook because we had an understanding with the new "Rulers". West Point Man Qadafi needed to stay put until we could cut a deal with whoever is running things in Bengazi. The Saads just want to keep OPEC stable, and that's good for the Oil Men. Code word is "Stability".
The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
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.
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.
"Enemies are necessary for the wheels of the U.S. military machine to turn."
-- John Stockwell, former CIA official and author
Forgive me for being off topic here, but...
HOLY CRAP! I used to work with John Stockwell. I have a copy of his book "In Search of Enemies" that I was never able to give back to him. He was my supervisor at a job we had at a "tech support sweat shop". He was the manager in charge of call monitoring/quality control and I was the guy who listened to all the tapes and graded the techs.
I could tell stories, but it's best if I don't.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
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.
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?
Oh bullshit. The permanent members of the Security Council control the UN. If one of them vetoes, then regardless of what the US says, there's no UN sanctioning of an action.
Gaddafi brought this on himself, and I have to wonder at anybody that sheds a tear because that vile bastard is about to get his ass hammered.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Abstentions to the Security Council vote : Russia, China (no surprises so far), Brazil, India (mmh?), Germany (WTF?).
Umm - what, on earth, makes you think that the US supports or has ever supported Qadhafi? You've obviously just been saying this for so long now that you simply don't bother to check who it is you're talking about before you post.
dnuof eruc rof aixelsid
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.
Should have happened 30 years ago. Hopefully if there's some evidence of the inital peaceful protests being bombed/strafed then he'll go the way of Hussein etc.
dnuof eruc rof aixelsid
The US has been supporting (grudgingly accepting?) Gadhafi for a few years now, ever since he turned in his nuclear program in 2004 (several days after we pulled Sadaam out of a ditch. Probably not a coincidence, but I digress). Until the past month, really. We even shot down down a few of his MIGs in the 1980's on two separate occasions.
"It is a good thing for an uneducated man to read books of quotations..." -Winston Churchill
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.
It's something to do with him showing he's humble, afaik.
Kind of odd to be colonel and commander in chief though, isn't it.
Sent from my PDP-11
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.
good point...
China loans the US government all the money we spent at Walmart to help with military actions. Then they get paid interest on it! Wooo. Considering they don't allow the PROFITS of Chinese companies to return to China it's twice as bad. They pay for delivery of raw materials in US dollars, from US customers so it doesn't crash their economy or let their middle class get too big. It also makes them look far poorer than they really are... they're still playing the "developing nation" card when it's time to pony up soldiers and resources... while happily loaning us our own money back!!!
Seriously though, China's consuming their entire economy with production.
dams, rails, factories, chip fab... Their GDP is still low enough that their percent might be similar to the USA percent... until you realize the USA GDP is almost 10 times!! bigger. Consider they protect 1.2 billion people with $60 billion dollars. (go Wikipedia)
the USA spends almost $1 trillion! protecting 300 million. Things like the wars which are mostly out-of-budget as well as care for wounded troops, Alphabet agencies, etc, and the added INTEREST on all that.) We spend per citizen 40 TIMES (10x budget div 1/4 people) more REAL dollars what China does... that's crazy.
Welcome to being the last SuperPower. Don't like it? Defund the military 90%.
Slashdot, where armchair scientists get shouted down and armchair theologians get modded up.
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?
Good to know you are aware of who the terrorist is dumb ass.
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.
And bombed his tent and a couple airfields and sunk some of his navy while firing missiles at his SAM sites.
If Reagan or Bush had been able to get a UN Resolution for a No Fly Zone over Libya in the 80s we would have and the US Navy would have had a holiday blowing the crap out of Libya's navy and air force.
But the Cold War kept it from happening, the Arab League thought he was one of their guys and OPEC liked him.
Hell NATO couldn't agree on action against him, with Italy, France and Spain being against US/UK pressure on Libya.
Kind of funny how invading iraq did more for world peace than a worldwide apology tour.
If I had mod points this would be modded up for sure. Hilarious.
Keep in mind they probably pay their troops (whom I think are mostly conscripts) diddly squat. If their troops are conscripted, they don't have to shell out something like $16k per recruit in advertising.
There is more to science than physics!
www.iomalfunction.blogspot.com
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.
Initially, I disagreed with you because my first thought was, "Why 30 years ago?" I figured that the revolution was still fresh in people's minds and it takes a force of the population to really begin something that leads to what Libya is seeing now...
Then I read the part where Gaddafi began assassinations of dissidents starting in 1980... If anyone deserves to be overthrown it's probably this guy.
Sadly, the United States is a bit busy taking care of other conflicts and racking up an even larger debt, further spending money it won't get from taxes for another 10 years. Leaving it to the UN will leave you with resolutions similar to exactly what is announced by TFA.
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.
It is an internal matter
Mass murder of civilians is never an "internal matter". It's crime against humanity. There is ample precedent for the use of force in such circumstances (sadly perhaps not as ample as it should have been).
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?
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.
Not to mention the fact that Libya only produces about 2 million barrels of oil per day (http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/4513). Figure they export at most 1.5 million of it, that's not a lot to spread around. Hardly worth invading them for it. I'll stick with the "human rights" excuse too.
Actually, it's done a lot of good. It gave us a battlefield to fight terrorists that wasn't American soil. Many of those we have fought over there WERE going to attack americans either way, we just gave them a place where American civilians wouldn't be endangered in the process.
The other thing it did was radicalize those in the muslim population who were ripe for radicalization. It brought them out of hiding and put them on a battlefield where they could be fought. America is safer because of this. They aren't attacking american targets here or our holdings in other countries; they're attacking our well armed soldiers in the field. Again, these people choose to attack us, all we did was choose who they had the best opportunity to attack.
Would you rather these people have been left alone to plan more attacks like 9/11 or the Madrid bombing and kill innocent civilians, or would you rather they keep their focus on attacking an army of soldiers who have chosen to fight?
--Forest C. Adcock--
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.
US controls the UN
An extremely well documented history says otherwise. You just make this shit up on the spot so you have something to troll?
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."
Democracy in Iraq was surely a big part of the motivation for the several countries with ongoing fights for democracy right now. 'n hoping for the best inEgypt and Libya - may they get a real democracy, not a theocracy with 1 election - but for god or ill Iraq played a part in this.
France has shamed us in Libya, showing the leadership we lacked. How can I make cheese-eating surrender monkey jokes now? Damn, even Carter took some sort of action (failure that it was) during his middle-east crisis - this is just embarassing.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
... and what would have happened then?
The Lybian economy would have rocketed to outshine the Swedish one? Civil liberties would have been instated the next day? Or maybe one of Khadaffi's sons/henchmen would have just superceded him for a slightly-different flavour of the same despotic gunk?
Americans occasionally don't seem to get something. "Beatings will continue until morale improves" does NOT work. You can't liberate countries from their despots if you're an outside party. This needs to be driven and settled from within, by their own people, without help if at all possible (tho in the present 'damned if you do damned if you don't' situation, I reckon it's good they are helping tip it, but even more important that it's the Libyans themselves who are driving it.
When it gets driven from the outside, you end up standing in the middle of a civil war, and fully responsible for its outcome, with far-reaching reprecussions if you leave the task unfinished, and with both sides ultimately blaming you. (I think this concept is referred to as "Iraq" in American English). On the bright side, the current US president turned out to handle the current crisis much much better, galvanizing support from the world (especially noteworthy - the ARAB world) with what may end up much better results and much less collateral to US reputation and alienation in the business world. Good on'im (and ye'all).
-
The poor bastards.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
..., we just gave them a place where American civilians wouldn't be endangered in the process.
Yeah, right, it's a good thing that only Iraqi civilians die.
Ich geh dann mal kotzen ...
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.
The problem with those body counts is they are extremely likely to even more wrong than the numbers provided by the military. Which is not to say the military numbers are close, but those numbers might as well be made up - as they likely are.
Democracy in Iraq was surely a big part of the motivation for the several countries with ongoing fights for democracy right now. 'n hoping for the best inEgypt and Libya - may they get a real democracy, not a theocracy with 1 election - but for god or ill Iraq played a part in this.
Iraq? C'mon ... If anything they looked to western Europe, but I'd rather say in Tunis they just couldn't take it any-more and Egypt followed suite.
...because that vile bastard is about to get his ass hammered.
And how exactly is that going to happen? Most likely, Lybia will be split in two with Gadaffi in charge of the western portion.
Actually there are a lot of regimes in Africa that kill their own people by the dozens. Make no mistake, Gadaffi is a bastard but what happened here is just pure politics with little to do with humanitarian purposes. But in any case that's the way the world works everywhere, mess with the powerful guys and you are going to get it, one way or the other.
And who told you the terrorists were in Iraq in the first place? Remember it was the weapons of mass destruction, oops.
huh?
Add to that the crap he has pulled since then like the shooting of a British Policewoman outside the Libyan embassy in the UK, blowing up an airliner, the support for terrorists around the world (IRA etc) and when he stopped all of that he still continues to arm, train and fund some of the most brutal rebellions in Africa (some of them against democratic governments).
This all makes it one of the few cases where I would justify an invasion since the pain and suffering he causes extends well beyond his borders and the world would be better off without this psychopathic wackjob.
To some extent it was Iraq but for odd reasons. Pushing over the Baath party in Iraq, even though it took the U.S. military to do it, showed it was possible. But I think that was minor except for what it made possible, i.e., an Arab government more or less democratically elected.
It also showed that one of the top psychopaths, Hussein, could get his neck stretched by other Arabs. And even that dirty little dog, Moktada al Sadr can run his own private army...I think he's back skulking among his masters in Iran...studying...hehehe. Yeah, that's what he's doing...
Anyhow, those events in themselves were no where near enough for any Arab Spring. The major influence was sheer disgust at Arab's everyday lives. They could see using modern media that others had it better. That doesn't mean they are smart enough not to trade one form of dictatorship for another, i.e., theocracy. However, it does mean there might be hope.
The acid test is what happens to women's and minority rights. When we see those respected and those groups allowed equal status as Muslim men economically and politically, then we'll know they've turned the corner.
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.
Third military operation? How about those drone strikes in pakistan? Or don't they count?
Gaddafi brought this on himself, and I have to wonder at anybody that sheds a tear because that vile bastard is about to get his ass hammered.
I hope it's not too late for that. Protesters seem to have been almost defeated already. I fully agree with the UN resolution, but I wish it had come a week earlier.
There is the fact that this is a people's uprising following the wave of protests in neighbouring countries. I think the Libyan people would have been perfectly capable of liberating their own country if Khaddaffi hadn't had air support to beat them down. A week ago, a no-fly zone would probably have spelled the end for him. But now, I'm not so sure anymore. The rebels are almost defeated. If the UN resolution allows bombing of the Libyan army and mercenaries, that could make a big difference, but I really hope the people haven't had their spirit sufficiently crushed already. An uprising this large is rare, and can easily lose steam.
And I don't think anyone wants a prolonged civil war here.
Yeah, and worldwide dramatical incerase in terrorist attacks (Iraq NOT included) after that have nothing to do with it, no sireee. Not to mention state of USA reputation.
I said it earlier and I will say it again: USA itseld did more to growth of terrorists and USA haters than these nuts could ever dream on their own.
With spewing such inane idiocy, no wonder you're AC.
What modern Obelix would say today? Of course, "Those crazy Americans!".
In other words, you are glad that there are more terrorists and USA haters.
If you are from USA or like USA, you are batshit insane.
What modern Obelix would say today? Of course, "Those crazy Americans!".
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?
What about all those defense company workers who won't be getting their Christmas bonuses because Gaddafi won't be resupplying next year? What happens if they get fired?
What about celebrities and politicians who give concerts and pose for pictures with the dictator? Who will fill in their unused time slots?
What about all those Alpha Gerbils in the stock market who are betting on those companies? What happens if they have to run faster or change direction in their wheels?
Have you no conscience?!
May the Maths Be with you!
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.
Not at all. Iraq wasn't authorized by UN.
The issue I have with this statement is where do you draw the line? It is quite arguable that more civilians have been murdered in many other countries around the world (see China, Iran, et al) than have been murdered in Libya. Should we be imposing no-fly zones around the world? Don't get me wrong, I despise what is going on in Libya right now, but if we took the same set of principles here, we literally WOULD have WWIII. The only reason Libya is "special" is because a) the population is only 6 million (Iran for example is 12x as much), b) the economic ties are less than in other similiar situations, and c) "because we say so".
If this is any consolation, war on Reality is just going fine.
What modern Obelix would say today? Of course, "Those crazy Americans!".
What makes you think that "military didn't have a plan in place"? All that I seen on media indicates that everything was put on motion just after annoucement of results of voting.
Hey, maybe you are one of these idiots that think no fly zone can be deployed in 15 minutes?
What modern Obelix would say today? Of course, "Those crazy Americans!".
wasn't greece ruled by a junta composed entirely of colonels for a while? i think some other african dictator was a lieutenant--i remember reading on wikipedia that he was the lowest-ranked military dictator ever, but some deletionist appears to have pulled that bit down.
Media that can be recorded and distributed can be recorded and distributed.
-kfg
...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.
"Many of those we have fought over there WERE going to attack americans either way"
- Bullshit. We invaded Iraq and they posed NO threat to us. Some of them fought back just like you'd fight back if someone invaded the US.
"Again, these people choose to attack us, all we did was choose who they had the best opportunity to attack."
- AFTER we invaded a Muslim country that posed no threat to us. Of COURSE they attacked us. You would do the same.
"Would you rather these people have been left alone to plan more attacks like 9/11 or the Madrid bombing and kill innocent civilians, or would you rather they keep their focus on attacking an army of soldiers who have chosen to fight"
- Interesting, but very narrow choices you've provided there. How about I'd rather we did not invade countries that pose no security threat to us. How about that we don't waste billions of dollars and piss away our nation's future in the pursuit of pure greed on the part of the ruling elite and the military industrial giants? Your choices that you provided are bullshit, like all of your arguments. You've really swallowed everything they gave you, didn't you. I hope you at least got a reach-around for your troubles.
Maybe he's a traditionalist. Somehow coups seem to be colonels' territory. No idea why.
I know those are right wing talking points, but they've been debunked over and over. There was no danger of a "terrorist" invasion on American soil from Iraq. All available evidence indicates that the invasion of Iraq weakened the United States and strengthened it's enemies. Most, maybe even all of the people that the U.S. is fighting now in Afghanistan and Iraq posed no danger to the United States before the invasions. Invading Afghanistan was justifiable because they were helping to train and arm terrorists, mostly for operations in the middle east, but still justifiable. Iraq on the other hand was a Bush vanity invasion and it has cost the U.S. severely.
Radicalizing those who were ripe for radicalization is actually a bad thing, because that radicalization tends to ripen other people. What you end up with is a terrorist assembly line where you generate a constant stream of people who hate America for very good reasons like "they invaded my country", "they burned my fields", "they destroyed my house", "they killed my friends", and "they killed my family".
I think you have a simplistic view of the world that creates enemies where there used to be none. Most of the people responsible for 9/11 are living in relative safety in Pakistan and they are no doubt trying to plan more attacks like 9/11 and Madrid and laughing at idiots like you believe in fighting the wrong wars in the wrong countries.
Part of the reason the U.S. hasn't taken a stronger leadership role in Libya is to avoid creating a larger backlash against American intervention in the Middle East. After the invasion of Iraq is entirely possible for the U.S. to actually create support for Qaddafi merely by stridently opposing him, then there's the massive debt and deficit legacy of the Bush years. I would say on the whole, that the invasion of Iraq has done more harm than good, which is to be expected of an invasion where all the justifications have turned out be nothing more than lies and wishful thinking.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
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
He did. He was only a Captain when he took over the country. He promoted himself to Colonel.
"When I grow up, I want to be a weirdo"
The issue I have with this statement is where do you draw the line? It is quite arguable that more civilians have been murdered in many other countries around the world (see China, Iran, et al) than have been murdered in Libya.
Should we be imposing no-fly zones around the world?
China and Iran don't do it on that big a scale, but when they do (e.g. Tibet), it's just as wrong. Problem is a no fly zone wouldn't help in those cases. And, of course, would not be feasible to maintain without escalating into full fledged war that brings many more deaths. Whereas Libya already has war.
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
Yeah, the American Shadow Government isn't what it use to be.
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.
The US had to be sweet-talked into backing this action in the first place. European countries (specifically France and England) are going to lead the efforts, an Arab country is almost certainly going to commit aircraft and it's possible the US may not ever fly a combat patrol over Libya.
Sorry.
Rubbish. If Iraq played a part, it was a very small part indeed. The motivation had much more to do with unemployment, food prices and corruption, with the suicide of Mohamed Bouazizi providing the spark (no pun intended). The situation in Iraq is exactly what these countries will be trying their hardest to avoid in the coming months and years. They can do that, as long as the revolutions are seen as home-grown and not due to outside influence (which is why we have to be very careful about intervention in Libya), after which they are much more likely to sustain lasting democracies than Iraq.
You couldn't really make them before without sounding like a twat.
The motivation had much more to do with unemployment, food prices and corruption
These problems have been around for decade, even centuries, perhaps millennia in Egypt, and havn't led to revolt in favor of democracy before. Iraq showed that you can overthrow your dictator (with some outside help maybe) and install a real democracy. My best wishes to the revolutionaries to do both - because getting that second election is harder than getting the first!
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
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
the obvious difference being the no-fly against iraq was pure imperial aggression.
look sig is kool
Most of the civilians I saw dead over there had AK-47's in their hands when they died...
--Forest C. Adcock--
No, I didn't get a reach around. I got my legs shattered and my knees destroyed when my helicopter was shot down.
--Forest C. Adcock--
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.
.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