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.
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!
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.
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.
'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.
we'll just bomb 'em into the stone age.
Then they'll really be screwed. Do you know how hard it is to make stone tools when all you've got is sand?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
There will never be a WWIII. That requires two sides. One good, one evil.
lol Americans.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
No Fly Zone means his military airfield infrastructure can be bombed, so can SAM sites, radar sites and Command Control Communication nodes, like Gaddafi's compound.
Libyan or chartered planes bringing in mercenaries can be shot down or diverted.
The refineries are already offline, so fuel shipments to Libya's mechanized forces can be stopped while the Free Libyan forces get arms and training.
You really don't think that the US, French, British and likely Egyptian special forces aren't already there assisting and arming the former Libyan units that switched to the Free Libyan side?
I'd not be surprised if the Turks, Poles, Ukrainians and Czechs aren't there too, the Poles and Czechs were big into training Libya in the 80s and after 2004.
Theres probably even some Syrians and Israelis floating around on the Egyptian side of the border aiding fighters too, they always show up.
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.
... 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."
And who told you the terrorists were in Iraq in the first place? Remember it was the weapons of mass destruction, oops.
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!".
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