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.
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.
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.
Of course this is about subduing. This is the face of humanity underneath the very thin veneer of civilization. There is no objective "right" or "wrong" here, just those views of the UN representatives, the views of Ghadafihoweveryouspellit, the views of the Libyians, and the views of the citizenry represented by the UN, of which there are conflicting views. The whole notion of "legal" is thrown out with a toppled government, as the toppling typically stems from the currently executed notion of "legal" being fundamentally unwanted and reprehensible by the people at large, turning over into revolution as a final survival response to eliminate that "legal" system of behavior that threatens them.
And yes, the UN is acting as a "world police" here, stating that the Libyan people should not be treated as they are, thus trumping Ghadafi's sovereignty. Now, there might be all sorts of other ulterior motives at play, but this coincides with the public view.
There are days when I hate being a westerner.
This is a very strange statement to make, after exposing the basic primal human responses going on here. Of course, the whole "western" notion carries its own conflict of "freedom to act" vs "freedom from oppression", where Ghadafi is acting and the Libyans are being oppressed. The UN obviously holds the latter as overruling the former, and has the power to act against his actions (though at the speed of government). I'm curious to hear you expand on your statement.
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.
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.
Illegitimate nations like Libya have no sovereignty beyond what the international community grants them. Just because a guy uses military force to control an area doesn't give him any sort of right to that area. Right now there is no Libya beyond Ghaddafi. Only once he is out of the way and the people of that area are able to determine their own fate can it be said that they truly have anything resembling sovereignty.
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?
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.
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.