Slashdot Mirror
UN Intervention Begins In Libya
maliamnon writes "US, French, and British forces began enforcing a UN resolution (1973/2011) to defend civilians in Libya today. French aircraft are attacking tanks, while the US and possibly UK are supporting the operation with cruise missiles from sea."
Update: 03/19 22:34 GMT by T :
Adds reader bloggerkg: "More than 110 Tomahawk missiles fired from American and British ships and submarines hit about 20 Libyan air and missile defense targets in western portions of the country, US Vice Adm. William Gortney said at a Pentagon briefing. The US will conduct a damage assessment of the sites, which include SA-5 missiles and communications facilities. A senior US military official, who was not authorized to speak on the record, said the missiles landed near Misrata and Tripoli, the capital and Gadhafi's stronghold."
Everything we touch turns to merd'.
And eventually, when it fails, fingers will be pointed at the US as a "world tyrant". We should let the EU handle this one, by themselves. Or the Arab League
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
That's because the decision to protect or not protect civilians is essentially 100% correlated with either oil or some sort of important political motive. Humanitarianism is not a factor in the equation -- if it were, we'd invade Africa.
> Humanitarianism is not a factor in the equation
Have you ever actually met UN prosecutors? Or policymakers? There are a lot of bottom-dwellers on the world stage, yes, and a lot of really self-involved people in power throughout the world. But there are also a lot of really good people involved in the work, and a lot of really competent people who believe in what they're doing, and there are people who--though they are self-involved--genuinely care about whether or not other people are dying.
Humanitarianism is a factor in the equation. It's just not the only factor. Wars cost a lost of money and lives, and UN intervention is sometimes good and sometimes bad. If you think they don't care whether their presence helps or hurts, you don't know them at all.
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
But Libya doesn't have that much oil, only about 1% of world production. I was 100% against the invasion of Iraq, but in this case there is a home grown up rising that needs some help. If all we do is destroy Libyan military forces that are murdering civilians, but otherwise leave the revolution to the locals I support this action.
Anarchists never rule
How is this modded insightful? While this argument in favor of war is certainly overused, I can't see how this situation could be resolved with anything other than physical force. We currently have a very strong military force backing up a tyrannical dictator marching towards a city with every intention of murdering every man, woman, and child in the city when they get there. Because they were protesting. Against his tyranny. This sort of thing cannot be tolerated any more. I know it has happened many, many times in the history while we simply watched idly by, but this is no excuse to fail to act now, and we are simply out of options, Gaddafi has forced our hand.
To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
At the beginning, they didn't want us there (March 2nd). [presstv.ir] Of course, once the government started using tanks, fighters, etc. the opinions kinda changed...
Well yea, the entire argument for us being there is based on the government using tanks, fighters, etc. to gun down innocent (and some not so innocent I suppose) people. On March 2nd, I too would have been saying that we have no business getting involved. Things have changed.
We got a plate full of ruthless dictators..
But we don't have a plate full of armed uprisings. In Libya, there is one going on right now. With our air support, it may win. Without it, there will be slaughter.
If there shall be an armed uprising in Iran or DPRK, I sure as hell hope we'll do the same for them - then and there. For now, there's nothing to be done that can help (ground invasion wouldn't).
And a shitload of empty desert that can be used to harvest solar power.
But more importantly - Libya is right smack in the middle of the shortest route for transportation of electricity from North Africa to Europe.
Electricity should start flowing from North Africa to Europe by 2020. By 2050, North African and European renewable sources should provide 100% of EU and NA power needs.
Transported by HVDC transformers like the ones Siemens built for China along the link like the one Abengoa Group will build for Brazil.
Abengoa Group will also build the Solana Generating Station in Arizona - to the tune of 2 billion dollars.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Pretty much can be summed up in three words: Charles de Gaulle. The entire "cheese eating surrender monkeys" is just a cheap shot and did not originate during WW2 as far as I can tell. I happened later after the cold war was underway due to policy set by France and de Gaulle. First, de Gaulle thought that NATO didn't have what it took to win the cold war and the heartless Soviets would win the day, so they withdrew from NATO and went their own way. Two, France was in a big hissy to prove that they were a world power and could do anything the US could while Britain was just a US puppet and only had importance because they rode on the US coattails. They insulted Great Britain a lot, tried to throw their weight around, and did things like unilateral nuclear testing after everybody else had agreed on a ban. All of this after the Allies had freed France and given it back to the people because it was expected that we'd all be friends. It was pretty much felt as a big betrayal, so the surrender remarks are the cheap shot that is easy to make without having to actually get into real issues.
And if we look at how we are doing NOTHING when it is happening in Bahrain or Yemen, it simply makes us hypocrits
Yes, we should help no one just to be consistent. Great proposal.
you obviously have no clue about the geography of the two countries. afghanistan is impossible for anyone to hold (remember the soviets going in? no, of course you don't, because dumb septics like you have no clue about history - oh but you've rushed to wikipedia now to pretend you knew all along, prick) because of its geography. you can bomb all you like but fighting guerilla wars in inhospitable mountain territory against men who know the area perfectly is basically impossible. it's like city warfare except you can't simply shell the shit out of the mountains like you can buildings.
libya, on the other hand, is relatively flat and most of the important areas and cities are right on the coast. a few hundred thousand civilians can go against tanks, and they can get wiped out.
or hey, this might penetrate your pig-fucking-thick mind. you obviously haven't heard of the somme? a few hundred thousand men going up against just a few machine guns. the final score? a few hundred thousand men: nil. machine guns: a few hundred thousand.
idiot. fuck off back to your basement and stay out of world politics because you clearly have no fucking clue what you're talking about.
As the adage puts it: "The road to hell is paved with good intentions".
This "invasion" orchestrated by France and participated by the US, UK, Italy and Greece will be viewed by the more than 1 Billion Muslims around the world as yet another crusade against the Muslim world.
The West forgets one thing - that the Muslims still treat the West as their Enemy.
I am from a country where the majority Muslims rule, and every single day we are being bombarded with brainwashing propaganda that the West = Christian = Evil.
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Gaddafi is a big enough problem that I think a blind reroll of the dice would give good odds for the next government even if it doesn't turn out to be secular.
Ah, yes, the argument from ignorance. We don't know what's going to happen, so let's do it.
Putting aside the 150,000 to 600,000 Iraqis killed, do you think anyone is better off as a result of the Iraq invasion?
The Iraqis are.
Iraq had the best health care system in the middle east. Saddam, for all his faults, sent doctors to study in England and elsewhere, and people came from around the Arab world to be treated. That's all gone now. Doctors and their families were getting kidnapped, so they left.
According to the Washington Post, the Bush Administration appointed a free-market campaign contributor from the right-to-life movement to run the health care system (replacing an administrator who had actually managed war zone hospitals for the U.N.). Bush's appointee replaced the pharmaceutical delivery system with a market-based approach. Result: The hospitals couldn't get drugs any more.
You think the Iraqis are better off without health care?