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."

Comments

Yep....

[Anonymous Coward]

http://i.imgur.com/9qZbg.jpg

Re:Yep....

[mykos]

I think they mean "NO FOREIGN INTERVENTION. Libyan military units can slaughter dissidents alone".

Re:Yep....

[Anonymous Coward]

If those are Gaddaffi loyalists, why are they waving the rebel flag?

Re:Yep....

[everett]

Because there doesn't exist such a thing as a false flag operation and a tyrannical dictator who is attacking his own citizens would never stoop so low as to engage in them when it comes to protesting foreign intervention?

What's the goal of it?

[f1vlad]

Unclear what they're looking to achieve, short of creating a chaos, without introducing ground forces.

Re:What's the goal of it?

[preaction]

FTFA: "The UN Security Council has passed a resolution authorising "all necessary measures" to protect civilians in Libya from pro-Gaddafi forces."

Re:What's the goal of it?

[werewolf1031]

The goal of it is to assist the anti-Qaddafi rebels; they are the 'ground forces'.

Or so it seems based on the resolution.

Re:What's the goal of it?

[Frosty Piss]

Your "sig" has a Twitter link. That's all I need to know about you. Idiot.

Re:What's the goal of it?

[WilliamTheBat]

The mandate for action and the goal seem clear. Clear the way so the Lybians themselves can march into Tripoli. Much better outcome than having US troops on the ground not knowing who to shoot. Added bonus, we -start- to make a clear break from the ruthless dictators we've supported in the name of the cold war and later the phantom menace, er, I mean the war on terror.

Re:What's the goal of it?

[ggramm]

"Oil"

*fixed that for you

Re:What's the goal of it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your "sig" has a Twitter link. That's all I need to know about you. Idiot.

Your "piss" has a Frost to it. That's all I need to know about you. Idiot.

Re:What's the goal of it?

[gmuslera]

Just profit. "Defending civilians" will end killing even more people that did Gaddafi, maybe orders more if we take Irak as an example, but the oil production will get ensured and under more friendly hands.

Re:What's the goal of it?

[Frosty Piss]

Your "piss" has a Frost to it. That's all I need to know about you. Idiot.

And while I post under my account with "excellent" karma, you post as an Anon Coward.

Re:What's the goal of it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh BS. People like you whine when no one goes in to protect civilians and also whine when someone does.

Re:What's the goal of it?

[arielCo]

Umm... somehow I doubt that preaction (1526109) meant to write 'Oil' but typed 'FTFA: "The UN Security Council has passed a resolution authorising "all necessary measures" to protect civilians in Libya from pro-Gaddafi forces."' by mistake.

OTOH, if oil was what the US et al. wanted, they'd be helping Gaddafi. They've been a pretty reliable supplier, and prices have shot through the roof since the pesky rebels became a problem.

Re:What's the goal of it?

[Sir_Sri]

Why do they need ground forces? The point is to get gaddafi to leave, not to take over the country. A combination of supplying materiel to the resistance, and eliminating air threat, along with close air support against any heavy equipment they find will hopefully either convince gaddafi to go pitch his tent on Chavez's lawn for the rest of his life, or empower the rebels to take over.

Well, that, and they're paying mercenaries and using special forces to support the rebels. Libya is a country of 6.4 million, only half of whom are adults, and about half the country is allied with the resistance. I'd guess the adult population under gaddafi's control is around 1.5 -2 million people. Not exactly a huge resistance for the combined might of denmark and ireland let alone the US, UK, Canada, France, Italy and anyone else who wants some combat experience for their pilots.

Re:What's the goal of it?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:What's the goal of it?

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

> 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.

Re:What's the goal of it?

[preaction]

Also, if we wanted oil, they'd be called "Terrorists", not "rebels" or "freedom fighters".

Re:What's the goal of it?

[arielCo]

Yeah, Troll is the second best thing to "-1 Doesn't reinforce my worldview"

Re:What's the goal of it?

[517714]

You destroy someone's tanks and fighters today. Next week you sell them new tanks and fighters. Profits and Chaos are the byproducts of the transaction.

Sorry for the flippant answer. I am sure that whoever replaced Halliburton in controlling the current administration did an analysis that showed deployment of ground troops was not necessary to generate obscene profits.

Re:What's the goal of it?

[zippthorne]

And in favor of the even more ruthless regimes that will likely follow...

There was never a good choice. Hopefully it will turn out that this was at least the least bad option. Things are starting to get pretty hot everywhere, though. I hope Tunisia won't turn out to be the Archduke Ferdinand of our generation.

Re:What's the goal of it?

[MightyYar]

"Oil"

Yeah, that Qaddafi guy is just trying to do what is best for his people. HE should be the one to profit from the oil. You know, as a reward!

Seriously, I don't know what the French motivation is, and I don't know what the British motivation is. Perhaps they are just being good humanists? Perhaps they are just letting the emotion of the "Arab Spring" get to them. Perhaps they want to ensure a steady supply of oil. The Americans have their backs, and even the Arab League is in. Whatever the motivation, the result is good, for most definitions of the word "good".

Re:What's the goal of it?

[WilliamTheBat]

Yeah, maybe the next gov't will be worse... It's easy to make doomsday predictions, much harder to back them up. Iraq and Afghanistan have free elections, they got corruption and profiteering, but no dictatorship so far. Egypt is voting on changing their constitution or throwing it out and starting over... There's big things afoot, and no way will the people-power that has produced these changes go away. *** From now on, the governments will fear the people, not the other way around.

Re:What's the goal of it?

[517714]

This just tells you who we are rooting for, not what we want. It's like NASCAR, sure you say you like fast cars and Tony Stewart, but you really want to see crashes.

Re:What's the goal of it?

[Lifyre]

While I can't really disagree with you since Egypt and Tunisia aren't major oil players it should be noted their protests were mostly without military action and wouldn't have warranted UN intervention in any case.

Re:What's the goal of it?

[canadian_right]

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.

Re:What's the goal of it?

[Anonymous Coward]

> 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.

It doesn't matter who they are or how they feel. They are "organization men". They are true believers in the top-down approach. This is nice when you want to run an assembly line. It is not nice when you want to fix a broken nation by reviving a broken people. That isn't something you can dictate at the top. Even if you remove the tyrant from power you still aren't fixing the shit conditions that allow one to take power in the first place. Apparently we learned nothing from the Third Reich - conditions in a nation have to get pretty desperate before the average person thinks that a power-drunk madman starts making sense.

All the good intentions in the world won't fix a broken approach. The fact that the very worst kinds of people are attracted to positions of fame, power, and prominence on the world stage just greatly compounds the problem.

Yes wars cost a lot of money. That's why the corporate powers behind the military-industrial-complex love them so much. Someone has to build all the planes and ships that are going to get destroyed. Yes wars cost a lot of lives, but the wealthy elite and the politically connected never have to send their sons or their daughters overseas to die in some third-world shithole. Occasionally the children of the elite gain a conscience against all training provided by their parents, like in the case of a certain European prince, but this is an extreme rarity. One would think that the leadership voting for the war would set the example by manditorily sending their sons to fight, but what's good for the goose is apparently not good for the gander. War is okay when it's the poor and the lower middle classes who fight and die.

Honestly the only thing I am thankful for in the whole mess is that so many youth are brainwashed into accepting patriotism that they volunteer. If not for that there might be a draft. That'd be bad news for me, as I am not a murderer so I refuse to go invade some sovereign nation that is no threat to us and go kill people who are guilty of no crime other than fighting a foreign invader. If a foreign army WITHOUT PROVOCATION marched on US soil you wouldn't need a draft and wouldn't even need a military to convince me to resist them. That's the difference.

Let the people of Libya sort this one out on their own. They outnumber their leaders several hundred thousand to one. I for one am tired of the US and its allies having their noses in everyone else's business. If things were going perfect for the US I would say maybe I can understand it. But we got too many of our own problems to go around playing world police and the effort to do it is only making us lots of enemies. A little isolationism is a great idea right about now, along with a repealing of NAFTA.

In the face of all this, how well I personally know the rank-and-file clerical workers and bureaucratic administrators at the U.N. is a petty, trifling non-issue. Thank you very much.

Re:What's the goal of it?

[dotfile]

I respectfully disagree. I believe the decision is based in large part upon whether intervention stands a substantial, realistic chance to do any good. Military intervention in places like Somalia would accomplish nothing productive; it's been tried. There often is no central government oppressing and attacking people, it's dozens (or more) bands of irregulars, led by warlords working mostly from drug money, fighting each other and taking the opportunity for the occasional tribal massacre. In some cases there *is* a central government oppressing and murdering people, but the alternative would be another Somalia.

In the case of Libya, it seems clear that the citizenry wants the current regime out, and the current regime is willing to kill a substantial percentage of the population to hold onto power. It's also a fair bet that, once the smoke clears, Libyans will be willing and able to establish a new government and bring things back to some semblance of normalcy.

If the decision were based solely upon maintaining a cheap oil supply, we could just as easily help crazy-ass dictators like Gaddafi restore order and suppress the rebellion, in exchange for a few price and production promises.

Re:What's the goal of it?

[BudAaron]

That's dead simple - supporting people against another genocide bound despot willing to kill his own people to retain his money and power.

Re:What's the goal of it?

[MichaelSmith]

By remotely hitting air defence systems (radars, missile launchers) they make it safer to later fly over Libya to attack government ground forces.

Re:What's the goal of it?

[Citizen of Earth]

Sadly, the resolution says no such thing. The resolution merely seeks to stop the fighting. If Gadhafi isn't a moron, he will stop fighting shortly and negotiate with the goal of keeping all the territory he is occupying right now. This would keep him in power indefinitely and keep the $billions of oil money flowing into his Swiss bank accounts. The dithering UN bureaucrats are indeed stupid enough to go along with this. If he is stupid enough to fight the coalition, this will lead to his demise.

Re:What's the goal of it?

[_Sprocket_]

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.

Troll or geography lesson - you be the judge.

Re:What's the goal of it?

[Manos_Of_Fate]

Let the people of Libya sort this one out on their own. They outnumber their leaders several hundred thousand to one.

What are even several hundred thousand, or millions, of civilians going to do against just a few tanks and bombers? You can't defeat a bomber by dog piling it.

Re:What's the goal of it?

[pjabardo]

Why are they not demanding the bombardment of Bahrain military, or better, Saudi Arabia military?

Re:What's the goal of it?

[Frosty Piss]

I see that it isn't allowed to post negative comments in threads started by "Slashdot Employees". How professional of you.

Re:What's the goal of it?

[Dunbal]

What are even several hundred thousand, or millions, of civilians going to do against just a few tanks and bombers?

You obviously haven't heard of Afghanistan, huh? 9 years and counting...

Re:What's the goal of it?

[Dunbal]

They're called rebels and freedom fighters because we will sell them weapons on credit, in exchange for oil.

Re:What's the goal of it?

[mangu]

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

If oil were the motivation here, Western powers would be fully committed to support Gaddafi, like they do with the regime in Saudi Arabia.

Re:What's the goal of it?

[Dunbal]

Seriously, I don't know what the French motivation is,

Payback from Chad. Also, are you Americans going to continue to make surrender jokes now? "It may be the part of a friend to rebuke a friend's folly" -- JRR Tolkien. France and the US did not agree on Iraq, but how about now? Want some French Fries again?

Re:What's the goal of it?

[f1vlad]

Sure does look like you may need professional help with your paranoia. Please, post what you like, nobody is in your way.

Re:What's the goal of it?

[shutdown -p now]

The interpretation of the resolution by NATO (as described by Obama) does not merely require him to stop fighting - it also requires him to withdraw from the number of positions previously held by rebels that he had overrun in the last few days. Yes, it wouldn't kick him out of power, but it would still mean liberation for a large chunk of the country.

Re:What's the goal of it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Tanks, and especially the bombers, have a logistics chain stretching halfway to Mars. Interdiction of that chain at any point will blunt the tip of the spear.

You figure it out.

Re:What's the goal of it?

[quax]

if it were, we'd invade Africa.

Tried this once. Remember Somalia?

Military humanitarian interventions when aligned with economic interests seem to be pragmatic in comparison.

And this is a truly internationally sanctioned intervention quite different from the (incredibly stupid) Iraq war of aggression.

The goal is to reduce Gaddafi's military capabilities and assets to a point that allows the rebels to survive and hopefully regroup.

Re:What's the goal of it?

[PCM2]

Military intervention in places like Somalia would accomplish nothing productive; it's been tried.

That must explain the U.S.'s decision to get involved in Afghanistan (which has been in a near-constant state of war for the last 30 years).

Re:What's the goal of it?

[PCM2]

Also, are you Americans going to continue to make surrender jokes now?

Based on my purely anecdotal perusal of my Facebook news feed, the current joke is along the lines of, "Awwwwww, look at France trying to get all tough."

Re:What's the goal of it?

[quax]

At this point neither of these despotic regimes have lost whole cities that they subsequently attacked with air raids and heavy armored infantry.

On the other hand your point is well taken. These evil regimes are of strategic and paramount economic interest to the Western world. A civil war in Saudi Arabia is a sure way to bring the world economy to a screeching halt. Unfortunately the totally corrupt House of Saud shows no signs to move towards meaningful reform. At this point there is no reason to expect this to end well.

Re:What's the goal of it?

[quax]

That must explain the U.S.'s decision to get involved in Afghanista.

Are you seriously suggesting you don't know why the US got involved there?

Re:What's the goal of it?

[Sarten-X]

you still aren't fixing the shit conditions that allow one to take power in the first place.

Absolutely! Before the UN or anybody else intervenes, there should be some clear sign that the people are ready for change! Maybe a mass uprising or something...

we got too many of our own problems to go around playing world police.

That's why we have several people, in several places, each doing their own jobs. The Department of Labor doesn't give a damn about Libya. Likewise, the Department of Defense doesn't care if you have a job right now. Government is a part of society, which is a group of people who have realized that people can work together, each doing their own jobs, to accomplish many things at once.

Do you also expect the President to not sleep tonight, because some kid in Oregon broke his leg?

Re:What's the goal of it?

[quax]

I don't know what the British motivation is.

  I submit the Lockerbie bombing

Finally there is an opening to get back at Gaddafi.

This war effort makes for some strange allies because Gaddafi managed to sorely piss off so many factions. Interesting find at Juan Cole's blog:

A note: The resolution was co-sponsored by the Lebanese government, in which the Shiite party Hizbullah (Hezbollah) is a leading element. In part, Lebanon was representing the Arab League, which in some ways was the major political force (along with Britain and France) pushing for world action. But in other ways something more personal was going on.

When I was working for a newspaper in Beirut in 1978, I translated wire service reports on the disappearance of the great Shiite leader Mousa al-Sadr while on a trip to Libya. He was likely murdered by Qaddafi and put in a grave somewhere there. I once attended a lecture by Sadr in Beirut. He was a great man, charismatic and a force for uplift in his community and for outreach to other communities. He probably went to Libya in an attempt to convince Qaddafi not to send any more weapons to the factions there (such arms shipments and factionalization contributed to the long Lebanese Civil War). Lebanese Shiites, including Hizbullah, still lionize Mousa al-Sadr and despise Qaddafi.

Payback is a bitch.

Have you ever heard of any other military intervention where the US was aligned with Hezbollah?

Re:What's the goal of it?

[Frosty Piss]

I think your comments are out of line.

Re:What's the goal of it?

[budgenator]

I've seen video of Libyan freedom fighters taking on a roof-top sniper with rocks.

Re:What's the goal of it?

[Rakshasa Taisab]

Towelheads don't know how to handle democracy, didn't you get the memo?

Re:What's the goal of it?

[budgenator]

the Department of Defense doesn't care if you have a job right now.

Actually the DoD has unfilled positions, go talk to a recruiter about employment possibilities.

Re:What's the goal of it?

[quax]

maybe the next gov't will be worse

It will be hard to find anybody as surreal and deranged as Qaddafi.

Re:What's the goal of it?

[arekusu_ou]

Gadhafi already called for a ceasefire Friday before the deadline, to talk things about with the rebels.

This isn't a peace talk. This is the West imposing their will on the Middle East again.

Re:What's the goal of it?

[DarkOx]

You mean like we are doing in Jordan?

Re:What's the goal of it?

[arekusu_ou]

Or a bunch of rebels trying to overthrow a standing government.

The difference between domestic terrorist and honored revolutionary? Popularity and success.

The US has their own rebels, maybe the rest of the world should overthrow the Tyrant US government?

Re:What's the goal of it?

[Nyder]

FTFA: "The UN Security Council has passed a resolution authorising "all necessary measures" to protect civilians in Libya from pro-Gaddafi forces."

Great, who's going to protect the civilians from the UN using "all necessary measures" in Libya?

"It's okay that we killed these people, it's for the greater good. Really."

20 years down the road, Whomever the leader we put in charge is going to be Public Enemy #1.

Re:What's the goal of it?

[Nyder]

FTFA: "The UN Security Council has passed a resolution authorising "all necessary measures" to protect civilians in Libya from pro-Gaddafi forces."

Who's going to protect the cililians from the UN forces?

And, 20 years down the road, whomever we put into office in Libya, how do we know they aren't going to be the big enemy? Seems like that's what has happened all the times before.

Re:What's the goal of it?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:What's the goal of it?

[MightyYar]

Want some French Fries again?

I think what pissed off Americans was this close ally deciding to get all idealistic over Saddam freakin' Hussein. There were about 1000 reasons to knock the guy over, and while Bush was a dick and France was probably right, you are supposed to have your friend's backs. Especially after the US was dragged into the Balkans kicking and screaming. France is all warlike now for whatever reason, and so the US has their back. My cynical side says that we just can't stand to sit out a good war :)

Re:What's the goal of it?

[mevets]

UN: Uhh, House of Saud, we think we should invade you.
HoS: Who is your daddy?

Re:What's the goal of it?

[REggert]

Gadahi/Kadaffy/Qaddafi/whatever did say he declared a ceasefire. Meanwhile, Libyan tanks continued to roll into Benghazi to "disarm to protesters".

Re:What's the goal of it?

[Rei]

The UN isn't referring to the Libyan people as "cockroaches" and ordering their military to go on a door-to-door "cleansing".

We're not going to put anyone in charge. We're not going to have anyone on the ground. What we will be doing (ostensibly purely as a side effect, although almost certainly by intent) is clearing the path for the rebels to do what they will. Which will almost certainly be the creation of a democracy (however flawed of one).

Re:What's the goal of it?

[Rei]

Yeah, some ceasefire when you keep bombing and shelling cities.

You seriously take this guy at his word? After all the absurd stuff about al-Qaeda and people hopped up on hallucinatory drugs (with the videos of prescription pain killers taken from a hospital as "evidence"), in between the talks of a "cleansing"?

Re:What's the goal of it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but that AC is funny.

Re:What's the goal of it?

[MightyYar]

Have you ever heard of any other military intervention where the US was aligned with Hezbollah?

LOL, yeah, you know you are a real asshole when you have those two coming at you at the same time :)

Re:What's the goal of it?

[ArcherB]

Gadhafi already called for a ceasefire Friday before the deadline, to talk things about with the rebels.

This isn't a peace talk. This is the West imposing their will on the Middle East again.

First Gaddafi broke his own "cease fire".

As for who is imposing their will, it appears that Gaddafi imposing his will on the African country he has ruled for 41 years. Strange that you would support a dictator. I guess you may have a case if the dictator had stayed in power by winning free and open elections for over 40 years, but that's not even the case here. It's not like the population is laying flowers down at his feet. There is an open rebellion going on over there.

So, again, it doesn't seem like it's the west imposing their will. It looks to me like the west is trying to remove the people out from under the oppressive rule of a dictator.

Go ahead and tell me where I'm wrong here.

Re:What's the goal of it?

[arekusu_ou]

No I don't trust this Ghaddaffi, but if there are ties to terrorism, than I feel it's vindicated with the Westerns constant encroachment into the Middle East's sovereignty. The US 'armed' the al-Qaeda they are fighting now. The US has seeded unrest and discourse in the Middle East for generations. If they fight back, it's out of necessity against a larger force and they fight back the only way they can, striking at civilians till the civilians stop their own military.

I also don't trust the rebel forces. If I was the rebel, and I wanted to push for a fight. And the other side called a ceasefire. I would break the ceasefire and blame the "tyrant" and keep the fight going. The rebels aren't to be trusted either.

Re:What's the goal of it?

[Dunbal]

The reason is simple - this time international law has been followed and things were done properly.

Re:What's the goal of it?

[arekusu_ou]

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2045354&cid=35546816 regarding why I don't trust either side about what happened to the cease fire. Could have just as easily been the rebels.

And as the West imposing their will. It's the West's thought that dictatorship is wrong. Not everyone opposes to not being in a democratically elected country. It's the West's will that everyone must have democratic elected government. Not everyone in Libya is backing the rebels, or it would be going more along the lines of Egypt.

Open rebellion doesn't mean they're right. Lots of countries have open rebellion and civil wars. It's not the place of outsiders with no vested interest to interfere. This is a civil war and the West will regret AGAIN with interfering with another country, time and time again.

My best example is how much Al quada loves the US after the US went into their country and armed Al quada.

Re:What's the goal of it?

[Sarten-X]

Fair point. Please allow me to rephrase:

The Department of Defense doesn't care if you have a job right now, unless you aren't otherwise occupied and are willing to do whatever task it is that they do care about, but generally speaking they will not take notice of your employment status unless they are interested in you for other reasons.

Doesn't have quite the same ring to it...

Re:What's the goal of it?

[nbauman]

What we will be doing (ostensibly purely as a side effect, although almost certainly by intent) is clearing the path for the rebels to do what they will. Which will almost certainly be the creation of a democracy (however flawed of one).

I've been reading the New York Times and Wall Street Journal carefully to try to figure out who the rebels are, and I can't find it.

Who are these rebels, and why does anybody think they'll create a democracy, or anything other than a dictatorship just as brutal as Ghaddafi's, if not more brutal?

Re:What's the goal of it?

[TapeCutter]

If it was about securing access to oil then the security council would be backing Gadafi. The other African despots are not dropping bombs on their own people, so a no fly-zone over them would be kinda pointless.

Re:What's the goal of it?

[nbauman]

FTFA: "The UN Security Council has passed a resolution authorising "all necessary measures" to protect civilians in Libya from pro-Gaddafi forces."

I heard a lecture by a military ethicist who said that according to U.S. military studies, about half the fatalities in any large military action are innocent civilians, and that's a reasonable standard for collateral damage.

True?

Re:What's the goal of it?

[MightyMartian]

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.

Just ask Napoleon, whose occupation of Spain lead to the invention of modern guerrilla warfare.

Re:What's the goal of it?

[nbauman]

That's dead simple - supporting people against another genocide bound despot willing to kill his own people to retain his money and power.

Who are these rebels, what do they stand for, and how do we know they won't be even worse than Ghadaffi?

Re:What's the goal of it?

[khallow]

Why are they not demanding the bombardment of Bahrain military, or better, Saudi Arabia military?

Why should they be? Bahrain and Saudi Arabian military are not shooting up Libyan towns, or towns anywhere else either. You might as well ask why "they" aren't demanding the bombardment of Belgian or Canadian military either.

At some point, the demand for punitive response has to be appropriate to the provocation or it's meaningless equivocation.

Re:What's the goal of it?

[CodeBuster]

It's not the place of outsiders with no vested interest to interfere

Ahhh, but the United States and Europe certainly do have a vested interest there. Libya, like many other Arab countries, has oil that is vital to the continued functioning of the global economy. The Arab league has also had quite enough of Gadhafi and his pan-Arabic socialist bullcrap; it undermines their authority and it's bad for business. This is what happens when a dictator makes too many enemies and not enough friends. The world has had enough of Gadhafi and it would be in just about everyone's best interests to see Gadhafi hanging at the end of a rope. He is a relic of the past that nobody needs and nobody wants.

Re:What's the goal of it?

[khallow]

You can't defeat a bomber by dog piling it.

A bomber isn't really that useful for crowd control, unless it's dropping nukes. The tank really is the more serious problem, but even then, you can take out its infrastructure. A tank without gas is near useless. A bomber without gas is useless.

Re:What's the goal of it?

[ArcherB]

My best example is how much Al quada loves the US after the US went into their country and armed Al quada.

The US armed the Mujaheddin that grew into the Western Alliance, not Al Qaeda. The Western Alliance was the non-bat-shit crazy group of terrorists half that was fighting for control of Afghanistan for 30 or so years. The other half was the Taliban. Guess which side we abandoned after the Soviets left Afghanistan? Guess which side we jumped in and started helping after 9-11.

Oh, and the Western Alliance has loved America since we provided them Stinger missiles to counter the Soviet Hind-D. This was well known by Al Qaeda and the Taliban as well. They assassinated the leader of the Western Alliance with a car bomb within days of 9-11. Many believe the two operations were closely related.

Re:What's the goal of it?

[Rei]

First, off, re. history: the US never armed al-Qaeda. The US armed the Mujahadeen. A very small fraction of the Mujahadeen ended up forming al-Qaeda after the war, with the overwhelming majority of the al-Qaeda membership coming from other parts of the arab world who had no involvement with the war in Afghanistan. Their main gripes were the US support of Israel and the US's support of their brutal, repressive dictators. We're doing the opposite of the latter one right now.

Please explain how your "rebels breaking the ceasefire" scenario matches up with hospitals getting shelled in Misurata and tanks trying to break into the city in Benghazi.

And "tyrant" does not belong in quotes. It's pretty indisputable that he's a tyrant.

Re:What's the goal of it?

[Rei]

Perhaps the fact that basically everyone has been marching under the banner of and shouting for democracy? Perhaps that as soon as a single crack in Gadhaffi's leadership broke, nearly the entire country rose up against him?

Oh, wait, that's right, ragheads don't want and/or can't handle democracy, right?

Re:What's the goal of it?

[DJLuc1d]

They're looking to achieve a no fly zone so the guy doesn't keep bombing his own people. We can speculate all we want about how this is another example of the US meddling in other nation's affairs, but the fact of the matter is this guy WAS BOMBING HIS OWN PEOPLE. Even after his 'cease-fire'... you know the one he agreed to right before he began shelling, and sent the tanks to, Benghazi.

Re:What's the goal of it?

[countertrolling]

I heard some wacky story that they're looking for some sheep herder named "Sam". Sounds like urban legend to me.

I've been told that it's been another bumper crop this year, and business is.. how would you say?.. *brisk*

Re:What's the goal of it?

[mjwx]

I hope Tunisia won't turn out to be the Archduke Ferdinand of our generation.

Very bad analogy.

Franz Ferdinand was assassinated by a minority opposition from a different ethnic group. Gaddafi's army is being fought by his own people.

But the most importantly, the "blank cheques" that were handed to minor powers by the major powers just aren't there. What empire has offered unconditional support to Libya? China doesn't care, neither does Russia, the ME is not a united force (last time enough ME nations allied with each other was 1967 and that started falling apart in six days).

Re:What's the goal of it?

[countertrolling]

We are removing Gaddafi because he is a public relations problem, the exact same reason we went after Saddam, and whoever it is in Afghanistan we're after. We don't give tinker's damn about the people. They're a big pain in the ass that only get in the way.

Just like before you accuse the anti war people of supporting the dictator.. All this pro war crap I've been hearing for over 45 years, and they are all still full of it. Once again you have swallowed the kielbasa whole..

Re:What's the goal of it?

[vertinox]

What are even several hundred thousand, or millions, of civilians going to do against just a few tanks and bombers? You can't defeat a bomber by dog piling it.

One of the funny stories in Egypt was the ones where a can of spray paint could defeat a multi-million dollar tank.

Actually it was a WW2 tactic where you would just throw smoke bombs at a tank and force them to unbutton, but the tactic remains the same. If a tank can't out their optic ports, they are basically blind and the only way to see where they are going is to open a hatch.

Thats when you get them.

Re:What's the goal of it?

[nbauman]

People who want military assistance from other countries are adept at telling those countries what they want to hear. (Sometimes they hire Western PR firms to prime them on what to say, as the Kuwatis did in the runup to the first Iraq war.)

If western countries want to hear that rebels are fighting for "democracy," then the rebels will say they're fighting for democracy.

That doesn't mean that they really are fighting for democracy, or that they even know what democracy is. They're just telling you what you want to hear, like any salesman.

But I didn't even see a rebel quoted in the newspapers saying he *wants* democracy. I can't find any issues.

You still haven't answered my question. Once again, who are these rebels, and what reason do you have to think they won't be as brutal as Ghadaffi?

Re:What's the goal of it?

[im just cannonfodder]

oil, oil, oil, gas...


Will the US now bomb Israel toï force them to comply with the hundreds of UN resolutions that Israel is in violation of?,

OFC not as the USA funds & veto's (blocks) all intervention at stopping Israel's illegal occupation, illegal constructions, genocide, torture, assassinations...

what's the difference between Yemen, Bahrain & lybia?

two of them have pro USA puppets & are allowed to murder civilians...

Re:What's the goal of it?

[im just cannonfodder]

oil, oil, oil, gas...


Will the US now bomb Israel to force them to comply with the hundreds of UN resolutions that Israel is in violation of?,

OFC not as the USA funds & veto's (blocks) all intervention at stopping Israel's illegal occupation, illegal constructions, genocide, torture, assassinations...

what's the difference between Yemen, Bahrain & lybia?

two of them have pro USA puppets & are allowed to murder civilians...

Re:What's the goal of it?

[khallow]

I've been reading the New York Times and Wall Street Journal carefully to try to figure out who the rebels are, and I can't find it.

So what? Even if you were telling the truth here, you would look elsewhere for this information.

Who are these rebels, and why does anybody think they'll create a democracy, or anything other than a dictatorship just as brutal as Ghaddafi's, if not more brutal?

Gaddafi has set the bar so very low here. I doubt myself that any democracy would result, it'd probably be some sort of reshuffling of power with other clans than the two that Gaddafi favors or perhaps even a balkanization of Libya.

Re:What's the goal of it?

[vasko]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swScM_glSB0

Why don't you then "liberate" Bahrein too?

Re:What's the goal of it?

[sznupi]

Do you? (fully, not PR version for the masses; few quick examples: first, second, third; curiously even some(!) parallels with...)

Re:What's the goal of it?

[sznupi]

Well, the rebels hold very substantial part of Libyan oil-producing areas...

Re:What's the goal of it?

[sznupi]

Why do people remember only Somalia?...

Re:What's the goal of it?

[sznupi]

What's pissing off Americans is that the French were right. They knew (they've learned that lesson, the hard way...) how such style of regime change is reckless and would bring only instability and massive harm.

What good are "friends" if they don't point out when and why you're wrong? (and what that tells about your "friendship" if you belittle them in return?)

Re:What's the goal of it?

[sznupi]

OTOH, regarding allies, where's Nelson Mandela? (probably the only figure on ~this side of the fence that Qaddafi respects, can listen to)

Re:What's the goal of it?

[arkane1234]

Mainly because of the big hubub about the helicopter.
And the fact that we basically couldn't fix the shit, because it's like trying to clean up a sewer.

Re:What's the goal of it?

[arkane1234]

No, this is a U.N. member not following the rules.
Get it right, and get that stick outta your ass.

Re:What's the goal of it?

[Anonymous Coward]

No I accuse antiwar people of being free riders that want the benefits of other's action while still claiming moral superiority by condemning those same actions.

Re:What's the goal of it?

[pjabardo]

So you say.

Re:What's the goal of it?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

True enough, but as for that last part.... Stalingrad, Warsaw, Grosny....

Re:What's the goal of it?

[Anonymous Coward]

AL qaeda never really cared about Israel. Their main gripe is the presence of american bases and soldiers on the land of arabia saudia.

Re:What's the goal of it?

[nbauman]

Gaddafi has set the bar so very low here. I doubt myself that any democracy would result, it'd probably be some sort of reshuffling of power with other clans than the two that Gaddafi favors or perhaps even a balkanization of Libya.

So we've gone from "almost certainly" to doubtful that a democracy will result.

What reason do we have to think that a reshuffling of the clans would be any better for the people of Libyia, either for the people of Libya itself, or for our interests?

Gaddafi was at least secular. How do you know that he won't be replaced by an Islamist, which is what happened in Iraq?

How do you know that al-Qaeda won't move in, which is what happened in Iraq?

How do you know that they won't have anarchy, with warring tribes of different sects exterminating each other's sect, which is what happened in Iraq?

Putting aside the 150,000 to 600,000 Iraqis killed, do you think anyone is better off as a result of the Iraq invasion?

Re:What's the goal of it?

[nbauman]

I've been reading the New York Times and Wall Street Journal carefully to try to figure out who the rebels are, and I can't find it.

So what? Even if you were telling the truth here, you would look elsewhere for this information.

This gratuitous insult leads me to believe that you can't make a case based on facts and logic, so you're using personal attacks instead. Case closed.

Re:What's the goal of it?

[sznupi]

But I didn't even see a rebel quoted in the newspapers saying he *wants* democracy. I can't find any issues.

From video recordings, it seems to be about Allah... ("... Akbar") maybe they're not so adept at PR after all. And about killing few dozen random bystanders (with better mortality rates than those due to fighting wounds)

Re:What's the goal of it?

[sznupi]

Two last cities aren't exactly a counterexample... (victorious ruins of Stalingrad are just barely - achieved at a huge cost for vast areas / populations of Soviet Union, largely thanks to overextended German supply lines)

Re:What's the goal of it?

[Patch86]

if it were, we'd invade Africa.

Libya is Africa, FYI.

Not that I disagree with you- there is a strong correlation between places that receive our attention and places with strategic resources. And I am in general reluctant to support military intervention. But this probably is the right thing to do in Libya- it'd probably be genocide if Gadaffi retook Benghazi. And seeing as he's yet another demon of our own making (we sold him weapons, we "welcomed him back into the international community"), that does give us somewhat a moral obligation not to abandon those people to their fates.

This is a UN-sanctioned action with tacit approval from China, Russia, Brazil, India, et al.- they don't exactly leap at foreign interventions in other countries' internal conflicts, and even they were convinced that intervention might be needed (even if not so convinced as to actually support the motion- lack of veto is as good as it gets from that crowd). That should tell you something about how the situation is panning out.

Re:What's the goal of it?

[arekusu_ou]

So....it's justification to topple a sovereign nation because

1. You have interest in their natural resource
2. Other countries don't like his stance like socialism (never would of thought a dictator could be a socialist, maybe a totalitarian could...)

Yeah very noble vested interests.

Re:What's the goal of it?

[corbettw]

I don't know about you, but I expect my friends to tell me when I'm about to do something stupid, then do it with me when I start.

"Dude, you shouldn't order more Jaeggerbombs. Fuck, ok, give me one, too."

"You should not be with this chick, she's wrong for you. But of course I'll be your best man."

"I don't know, that river looks pretty shallow and this bridge is pretty high...so you first."

Anyone can be a friend when things are easy, real friends stick with you no matter what.

Re:What's the goal of it?

[houghi]

Do you also expect the President to not sleep tonight, because some kid in Oregon broke his leg?

What? Did Timmy fell down a well again?

Re:What's the goal of it?

[Anonymous Coward]

You should be embarrassed about using your /. employee status to mod down people who disagree with you, that's really quite UNPROFESSIONAL.

Re:What's the goal of it?

[khallow]

This gratuitous insult leads me to believe that you can't make a case based on facts and logic, so you're using personal attacks instead. Case closed.

You lose your case when you whined that that NYT and WSJ wasn't spoonfeeding you what you wanted to know. I frankly don't believe you. They aren't sloppy news sources. A few minutes of googling could have found news stories, opinion blogs, etc all talking about who the rebels are. I don't have respect for someone who can't do basic research.

Re:What's the goal of it?

[khallow]

So we've gone from "almost certainly" to doubtful that a democracy will result.

Welcome to the world of multiple people where opinion doesn't march in lockstep.

What reason do we have to think that a reshuffling of the clans would be any better for the people of Libyia, either for the people of Libya itself, or for our interests?

Gaddafi was at least secular. How do you know that he won't be replaced by an Islamist, which is what happened in Iraq?

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.

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.

Re:What's the goal of it?

[khallow]

So you say.

Unless you got something better, that's all I need to do.

Re:What's the goal of it?

[nbauman]

(1) The FT article is behind a paywall, and I don't subscribe to the FT.

(2) The Andrew Sullivan blog you linked to doesn't tell who the rebels are either, it just links to another blog, which links to a PDF study. After 10 minutes of following that link, it seems that the authors suggest that the rebels are allies of al Qaeda. That doesn't sound like it would serve the interests of the U.S. to support them.

But generally, I'm not a foreign policy wonk, and I don't spend my time googling every issue. I just asked a reasonable question, and I was hoping for a reasonable answer, which you didn't give.

You don't have any respect for me, I don't have any respect for you. We're even.

Re:What's the goal of it?

[nbauman]

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?

Re:What's the goal of it?

[MightyYar]

What's pissing off Americans is that the French were right.

Your thesis can't be right. Americans are LESS pissed at the French now than they were at the time.

Re:What's the goal of it?

[MightyYar]

this time international law has been followed and things were done properly.

Partially because, when France started to talk like they were going to go it alone, the US stepped up and gave France their support.

Re:What's the goal of it?

[khallow]

Ah, yes, the argument from ignorance. We don't know what's going to happen, so let's do it.

Versus the other extreme of arguing from ignorance? We don't know what's going to happen, so let's not do it. My approach has the advantage of Gaddafi no longer being on top.

You think the Iraqis are better off without health care?

And I thought I couldn't have any less respect for you, Now I find that you think a government is just a health care agency. But to answer your question, yes, I think the Iraqis are better off. There are more important things than health care such as freedom, a life without fear, and the ability to pursue their hopes and dreams.

Re:What's the goal of it?

[sznupi]

Thankfully (hopefully?...) not a lot of people treat Jackass TV series as a guide to life. Much less to international relations. Usually.

(granted, "brothers in stupidity" is not anywhere near the worst description of friendship I've seen, but... Also, close to one of your examples: a friend is able to abstain completely from drinking to drive your ass home safely; the other two... I'm not sure if you know how random and insignificant in larger picture being chosen as a best man is (nvm how it primarily improves the social status... of the best man) - and are you really sure "go ahead, check with your neck whether I won't break mine" helps your point?)

Re:What's the goal of it?

[nbauman]

The Shiites can't live in the Suni neighborhoods, and vice versa. If they don't leave, they get killed (that's why so many of the doctors left for Syria).

So people can't live in their own homes because they're the wrong religion, and they have to leave or the militia will kill them.

That's your idea of freedom.

Did it ever occur to you that some people might not want to be driven out of their homes under threat of death?

Re:What's the goal of it?

[sznupi]

Well duh, obviously that kinda applies more to disagreements... ;p

Re:What's the goal of it?

[quax]

Yep, the US is in Afghanistan because of "Osama Bin Laden and the Taleban".

What's your point? 9/11 made the intervention just a foregone conclusion and then the monomaniacs in the White House dropped the ball when they thought Iraq was an easy and more juicy target. They were fully vindicated in their assumption that it'll be easy to sell to the US public and entirely wrong in assuming it'll be a military cakewalk.

Re:What's the goal of it?

[sznupi]

Yes; also good reasons to invade Pakistan (one of very few of our "allies" to quickly recognize Taliban gov; others being Kuwait and Saudis, IIRC) and label ISI as a terrorist organisation, for a start... Pakistani ISI which fought alongside Taliban against the Northern Alliance, greatly contributing to them being unable to hold Afghanistan.
But don't forget how, immediately after the attack, rumors began that Iraq could have played a role...

It's just "9/11" (nvm its slight continuity problems) in mass PR, where it's irrelevant how getting in the way of investigations probably made those events much easier, how the ultimatum was a farce. Why the largest support was going towards the only mujahidin faction eager to fight not only against the Soviets. Why opium production skyrocketed. How the compromised ISI was again, also, quick to point out their enemies.

Such subtleties just confuse people... (and the farce of October surprise in 2004 was hilarious, with OBL tape clearly designed to make reelection easier :) ...well, still not on the level of Reagan team hampering Iranian hostage release efforts)

How many people now realize that bomber gap and missile gap were a fiction comparable to mine shaft gap? How many even heard about Team B?

Re:What's the goal of it?

[CodeBuster]

Yeah very noble vested interests.

In case you hadn't noticed, the real world is an ignoble place.

Re:What's the goal of it?

[quax]

Americans in general are so uniformed the PR doesn't even have to be very clever or otherwise Fox News wouldn't work.

BTW, just as a disclaimer: I lived for a while in the US but now in Canada and was born in Germany.

Re:What's the goal of it?

[Rei]

Because anyone who says "god damn you" means that they want to live in a Christian theocracy?

Some things are just phrases.

Re:What's the goal of it?

[Rei]

Are you kidding? Al-Qaeda cites Israel and the Palestinians all the bloody time.

Re:What's the goal of it?

[kdemetter]

let the people of Libya sort this one out on their own

The people of Libya are human beings, as are we .
What is worse : a dictator slaughtering his own people , or good people standing by and doing nothing to stop him ?

It's not about oil : if it were , the US would be supporting Khadaffi , because then they would be certain of the oil . The situation now , is very unclear , and so not a smart choice if oil is what you are after .

Re:What's the goal of it?

[wondafucka]

Your "piss" has a Frost to it. That's all I need to know about you. Idiot.

And while I post under my account with "excellent" karma, you post as an Anon Coward.

Wait a sec.

And while I post under my account with excellent "karma", you post as an Anon Coward.

There, I fixed that for you. Have fun becoming successively angrier as people figure out ways to use the internet that suit their own needs.

Re:What's the goal of it?

[wondafucka]

I think your comments are out of line.

Although I agree that your life would be better with some therapy, I have a feeling it would be lost on you. Have fun marginalizing and retaliating after being marginalized. Keep posting what you like. Nobody is in your way.

A very sad day

[countertrolling]

The google news pages should be covered with protests, and I hear crickets...

The horror The horror

Re:A very sad day

[gtall]

Yeah, yer right, the nerve of the West to attempt knock over a ruthless dictator who has supported the worst sort of despots throughout Africa and who decided his people should have no right to self-determination. What were they thinking? What were you thinking?

Re:A very sad day

[countertrolling]

...knock over a ruthless dictator...

We got a plate full of ruthless dictators.. Like my mother said, "Pick the one closest to you".. Is that how it goes? Once again, just like before, you are believing the lies... Incredible... Get it through your head.. We aren't wanted there...

We pull our destroyer up to the dock, "mind if we park here for a few minutes?"

You are deluded as ever if you believe for a second we are helping anybody but the money changers..

I am dismayed and shocked.. You illustrate how little hope there is.. War is the solution to everything for you people. Horrible

Re:A very sad day

[WilliamTheBat]

War is not the solution to everything.. but when an insane dictator starts shooting civilians, you either stand on the sidelines, get some popcorn and cheer, or you pick up a gun and do something about it. -- Added bonus, no occupation means they can thank us for helping without having us hanging around year after bloody year.

Re:A very sad day

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, because peaceful protesting in Libya worked so well.

This isn't an unprovoked response; this is stepping in to keep a dictator from murdering his own people.

If you think that's overstepping our bounds, you clearly believe in a world of very twisted moral relativism.

Re:A very sad day

[CarbonShell]

We surely did not give a flying crap before.
And if we look at how we are doing NOTHING when it is happening in Bahrain or Yemen, it simply makes us hypocrits. Same was with Egypt.
Maybe in Bahrain or in Yemen's case, we were unsure who might come out on top and we did not want to spoil our good relations with the local despots.
Hell in Haiti we even supported the rebels against a democratically elected government with arms and when the rebels took over, we helped them take away everyone's weapons again. (would not want our new puppet Government to fall again)

Fact is, we don't care who is in charge of a country as long as we get what we want.

Re:A very sad day

[ThunderBird89]

Truth be told, the UN should have done this long ago, when the rebels controlled about three quarters of the country, just after the National Council was formed. At that moment, the Rebels were the legitimate government according to the foundation of international law, and were entitled to protection from Khaddaffi's forces, which were "threatening the territorial integrity of a state with a representative government", which is sacrosanct under the Helsinki Decalogue's fourth point (protection of the territorial integrity of the state).

As it stands now Khaddaffi might have a chance to win if he can crush the opposition fast enough with half the western world pounding his forces to dust, and claim "All Clear" as a basis for ending the intervention...

Re:A very sad day

[Urza9814]

We aren't wanted there? Ask the protesters. They want us there.

What, we aren't wanted there by the Libyan government? The leader who has said he has no problem killing as many people as it takes to retain control over his country? The government that has been gunning down peaceful protests with machine guns (sure, the protests aren't very peaceful now, but that's why)? The government that was sending fighter jets against chants and flags?

When innocent people are being murder by the hundreds and thousands for doing nothing more than speaking their minds...we have a responsibility as human beings to take action to help them. I can agree that military action is not always the best choice. If you have some alternative proposal, I may agree with you 100% after hearing it. But at the moment, I see no other option.

On a related note, it could be said that France wasn't wanted in the American Revolution either. But they got involved. And without their involvement, it is quite likely that the US would not exist as a nation.

Re:A very sad day

[melted]

So the right of Libyan people to self-determination will be enforced by bombing the heck out of them? Why are you ignoring pro-Gaddafi Libyans? Are they not Libyan? Do they have no right to self-determination?

Re:A very sad day

[ScentCone]

War is the solution to everything for you people. Horrible

No, but sometimes the use of force is the only way to stop someone like Gaddafi from continuing to use force as he slaughters his own people. I realize that you think he should just stop doing so because several Important People have used Really Stern Language telling him that he must stop doing so. But (shockingly!) he just keeps on dropping bombs on those civilians, and using artillery to kill them. What part of that are you not actually understanding? Or when say that we're "believing lies," do you mean that the Gaddafi regime's statements about the nature of what they're doing is actually the correct body of information? That all of the international press on the ground - who are sending us video of Gaddafi's aircraft attacking people on the ground - that they're all part of the conspiracy?

And you're calling other people deluded? How much money are you getting from Gaddafi to astroturf on behalf of his regime, anyway? Do tell.

Re:A very sad day

[geminidomino]

Might be easier to swallow if they hadn't sat with their dicks in their hands for what, a week? Two weeks?, letting the murder go on while they were too busy hand-wringing and making cutting remarks about Gadaffi's character.

Re:A very sad day

[Renraku]

It's one thing to slaughter your civilians using guns and light tanks, it's completely another to use artillery and bombers to destroy cities with heavy resistance movements.

The reason we're helping in Libya and not in the other countries is because the other countries aren't so blatantly anti-civilian. When you have to use your MILITARY to keep people under control, it's no longer a matter of people disagreeing with your government, it's a matter of you holding them hostage. Imagine if instead of getting mugged on the street, the mugger simply took office and demanded everyone's money or he'd order the military to napalm the city.

Re:A very sad day

[R3d M3rcury]

We aren't wanted there? Ask the protesters. They want us there.

Depends on when you ask.

At the beginning, they didn't want us there (March 2nd). Of course, once the government started using tanks, fighters, etc. the opinions kinda changed...

Re:A very sad day

[Anonymous Coward]

Just so long as we do actually get rid of him. Call it supporting the rebels if you like but to all intents and purposes we are at war with Libya and cannot stop until Gadhafi has been overthrown.

Still, it's worth remembering that this is a civil war started by the Libyan people and that this action has a clear mandate from the UN. It's very different from Iraq and Afghanistan in that respect.

Re:A very sad day

[Pseudonym Authority]

No, they do not have the right to have a vicious tyrant that kills his own people out of shear paranoia.

Re:A very sad day

[RoFLKOPTr]

War is the solution to everything for you people. Horrible

War is the solution to nothing for you people. Delusional.

Re:A very sad day

[countertrolling]

For the fourth time since Vietnam, I am living through the exact same scenario as your responses show today. It is truly astounding.. Hitchcock couldn't dream this up.. Maybe some science fiction writers have, I don't know. But what I see here is getting to be spooky.

We are sticking our nose in there to ensure we have a pro western regime in place. It is why we are repressing protests in Bahrain. The protesters there are too friendly with Iran. And we need the parking space. We aren't there to help anybody but ourselves to whatever they might have.

Please, it was eight short years ago when they pulled this. Why is everybody so fast to fall for the same ruse again?

Re:A very sad day

[binarylarry]

The rebels were doing pretty well until Gaddafi brought his air force out.

Re:A very sad day

[MightyYar]

War is the solution to everything for you people. Horrible

You may not have noticed, but "we" (the West, the Arabs, everyone else) didn't start any war in Libya. A dictator was mowing down his own people. The UN getting involved isn't starting a war, it's preventing someone almost universally regarded as evil from winning. "War" is not the solution - involvement is. If the Arab League and NATO aren't welcome, the people dancing in the streets have a funny way of protesting.

Personally, I'm quite selfish and would have been perfectly content to just sit this one out. But since we're involved now, I hope that Qaddafi recognizing futility when he sees it and doesn't get his whole military killed.

Re:A very sad day

[Anonymous Coward]

'...out of shear paranoia.'

Are they afraid of Edward Scissorhands?

Re:A very sad day

[Anonymous Coward]

What's the matter? Does it make your pussy hurt?

Re:A very sad day

[Urza9814]

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.

Re:A very sad day

[the linux geek]

Of course. So we should now topple the governments of Zimbabwe, Saudi Arabia, Cuba, Bahrain, Qatar, Iran, Syria, the Russian Federation, Belarus, Armenia, Tajikistan, Pakistan, Mainland China, North Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Algeria, DR Congo, Ivory Coast, Fiji, Transnistria, Myanmar, and Sri Lanka.

It does not. Fucking. Work like that. The fact that Europeans and/or the UN is involved doesn't change that.

Re:A very sad day

[countertrolling]

Well yeah, kinda

Re:A very sad day

[the linux geek]

When the hell did the left pick up this crazy interventionism? There are dozens of dictators that murder their own people, sometimes with far more efficiency than Qaddafi. North Korea does mass public executions in statiums. Russia deliberately targets hospitals. Dictators exist, and trying to overthrow all of them is both impossible and idiotic.

Re:A very sad day

[melted]

To me it seems like there's a pro-Gaddafi majority that's suppressing an insurgency in the distant provinces. The same exact thing that would happen here if Texas decided to secede from the Union all of a sudden.

Re:A very sad day

[geminidomino]

I understand that. But the moral high horse still stumbles a bit when you consider the damage said air forces did between the request and the OK.

Re:A very sad day

[Anonymous Coward]

Heh, how naive you are. Check 1. how much oil reserves Libya has, 2. what Gaddafi said he will do to the oil infrastructure, then think about it overnight and get back in the morning.

Re:A very sad day

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly as the world intervened in Tianamen square when the Chinese were murdering their citizens. Oh, that's different. The Chinese own (and owned) us.

Re:A very sad day

[Eponymous Bastard]

I know that RTFA'ing is not well received around here, but in this case reading the second one would be a good thing.

First of all, the resolution only gives the different countries permission to defend civilians, not to depose Gaddafi.

Considering that the widespread and systematic attacks currently taking place in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya against the civilian population may amount to crimes against humanity...
Analysis: These first two highlighted sections emphasise that this is all about defending the civilian population in Libya from attacks by its own government. One of the conditions for action set out by Nato countries has been "a demonstrable need" to intervene. ...
1. Demands the immediate establishment of a ceasefire and a complete end to violence and all attacks against, and abuses of, civilians;
Analysis: The overriding stated aim is to halt the fighting and to achieve a ceasefire. It does not explicitly call for the removal of Col Muammar Gaddafi though one can assume that this is what the countries promoting this resolution would like. Many of their leaders have said so quite explicitly.

Also, other countries are barred from putting in occupation forces and so on. Current attacks seem to be aimed at anti-air defenses so their forces can start enforcing a no-fly zone without having their planes shot down.

They'll probably target sites shelling other cities and so on.

Re:A very sad day

[Dunbal]

Meh, I think it's a bad idea but Khaddafi has had it coming for a long time. I remember Lockerbie. There's nothing like celebrating the death of innocent people on a transatlantic flight for making others remember you. I was scheduled to fly across the Atlantic on Pan Am a week after the tragedy. It could just as easily have been me. I'm sorry for the Lybians who will die, however. On both sides. My understanding is that the "rebellion" is not exactly run by "nice people" either.

Re:A very sad day

[vadim_t]

The difference is that the people there are actually having a revolution there.

It may be surprising, but people can manage to live pretty well under a dictator. For many people a dictator doesn't mean that much in practice. They still go on with living their lives, and it generally works OK even without freedom of speech or justice. If you remove a dictator in a place like that a lot of people won't be sure where to go next. So chaos is near guaranteed.

Now where there is an outright civil war it's different. It's clear the people want somebody else in the ruling position and that they will fight to get there. And that they have some sort of plan for when they do that. Of course it's not a guarantee, but the chances of something good coming out of that is much higher.

Re:A very sad day

[shutdown -p now]

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).

Re:A very sad day

[the linux geek]

Iraq had an outright civil war in 1991. Hundreds of thousands of people were killed during the war, and thousands more executed afterwards. Should the US have intervened?

Re:A very sad day

[shutdown -p now]

You conveniently remember Vietnam, but why do you forget Korea?

Re:A very sad day

[shutdown -p now]

I think the problem here is the indiscriminate bombing and shelling of civilians by pro-Gaddafi forces, which is a crime against humanity.

Re:A very sad day

[Dunbal]

Because people stopped caring about politics. They're too busy surfing for porn or playing with their video game consoles or watching their big-screen TV's. Nowadays the masses get their politics in a can - abortion/no abortion. Gay rights/No gay rights. Don't Ask Don't Tell. Republican vs Democrat. It's become a chant, a litany, and nothing more. Actually sitting down and thinking about the world is only done by those very few of us who are much smarter than the rest. And of THAT group, a good chunk have decided to run things for themselves - with the results you see today. The rest of us see the world as an academic exercise among countless other academic exercises.

Re:A very sad day

[Dunbal]

but "we" (the West, the Arabs, everyone else) didn't start any war in Libya.

Oh come on - you know that at the end of the day all of this is going to get blamed on Julian Assange and Wikileaks...

Re:A very sad day

[countertrolling]

Well hell ! Why didn't I protest the Moors conquest of Spain? No wait.. I should should've been there protesting the burning of Sodom and Gomorrah.. Fuck man! I shoulda slapped that apple out of Eve's hand, and we could've avoided the whole thing...

Re:A very sad day

[ScentCone]

What the ruse? The support for societies that are friendly to an objectively better culture, or the support for those that are friendly to a mysogistic, medieval-minded, theocratic, apocalyptic bit of nonsense as envisioned by the mullahs in Iran, or by the Taliban's allah-by-the-sword tyrannical idea of how the world should be? There's no ruse. Hardcore Islamists are worse for the world than their opposition is. It's that simple. Just like totalitarian communists are worse for the world than their opponents are.

Re:A very sad day

[Black Parrot]

Yeah, yer right, the nerve of the West to attempt knock over a ruthless dictator who has supported the worst sort of despots throughout Africa and who decided his people should have no right to self-determination. What were they thinking? What were you thinking?

How come we're not bombing Yemen and Bahrain, who are also using force against their uprisings? Or Saudi Arabia, for lending a hand in Bahrain?

Where were we during the genocides in sub-Saharan Africa? Or when Saddam was gassing his own people, or when he started a war with Iran that got ~900,000 people killed?

Maybe this intervention is a good thing, but let's don't pretend our intervention policy is based on noble motives. We're more likely to jump in bed with a murderous dictator than to bomb him.

Hell, we're even content to let our own people suffer a lack of basic health care, to keep the insurance companies' stock prices high. If we're motivated by humanitarin concerns, we should start by bombing ourselves.

Re:A very sad day

[melted]

Two questions:
1. How do you know it's indiscriminate? I mean other than from what they tell you on TV?
2. How is NATO bombing any more "discriminate"? You can't hit 112 targets and not hurt any civilians.
3. Why not just let Gaddafi re-establish law and order in the country?

Re:A very sad day

[modmans2ndcoming]

You're right... it doesn't work like that... here is how it works:

Popular uprising begins in a country, popular uprising controls half the country. Dictator starts rolling over the people who have formed their own democratic government, UN drops a no fly zone over dictator and starts bombing the crap out of their military resources so the rebels can continue to free themselves.

It works a lot better like that than it did the Neo-Con way which wasted over a trillion dollars and over ten thousand lives of US service members.

Re:A very sad day

[shutdown -p now]

I'm not sure what you're trying to tell here. Time-wise Korea and Vietnam were far closer to each other than they are away from us. And Korea is clearly a far better analogy, as it is also a UN-sanctioned military operation where many countries - not just US - participated towards a well-defined goal. The result is that 50 million people live today in a free democratic country, and not in a Stalinist dictatorship.

Re:A very sad day

[pz]

We got a plate full of ruthless dictators.

And Qaddafi is among the worst, or perhaps you haven't been paying attention for the last 40 years or so. The biggest difference between Qaddafi and the bulk of the other despots is that he actively wages war against his perceived enemies in the rest of world, rather than just talking about it.

Re:A very sad day

[PCM2]

When the hell did the left pick up this crazy interventionism?

Wow, that's some nice revisionism. So a sitting Republican president has never authorized military intervention, huh? Fascinating.

Re:A very sad day

[countertrolling]

I don't know how much you know about Islam. I don't know much about it myself, but to call it objectively "worse" is just blatant arrogance, (I'll let more articulate people argue the finer points of that) and what I have seen is the Christians overtly invading three sovereign countries over the last ten years, and have killed hundreds of thousands of people, yes, that's right, hundreds of thousands.. Covert operations are.. well.. covert.. So we don't know about all the adventures we're on. So let's play the numbers game shall we? How many people have the Islamists killed over the last.. 60 years, let's say.. how about 63 years to be a bit more precise?

You've had it too good to even remotely understand.

Re:A very sad day

[modmans2ndcoming]

The protesters in China did not control half the country.

Re:A very sad day

[the linux geek]

The Republicans have, absolutely, and they were (properly) criticized heavily for it. That dichotomy is when a Democratic President takes office and does what is effectively the same thing and gets near-universal praise for it.

Re:A very sad day

[modmans2ndcoming]

you are a fucking idiot if you can't see the difference between a colonial intervention (Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq) and a supportive intervention where the rebels want democracy, have fought hard and made huge gains on their own and with a little air support, can topple their despot on their own and get to work setting up their own government on their own terms.

Re:A very sad day

[andy1307]

. War is the solution to everything for you people. Horrible

So if the US had intervened in Rwanda to stop the genocide there, you'd be against that war too? When, in your worldview, is war justified. Please enlighten us.

Re:A very sad day

[Anonymous Coward]

Are they not Libyan?

Well, no. At least based on what was reported by most journalists until Gadhafi made their work (and in some cases life) impossible. When the rebels began making progress and parts of Ghadhafi's military switched to the rebels' side (and a few pilots landed in Malta and surrendered), his regime began hiring mercenaries from neighbouring countries.

Do they have no right to self-determination?

By definition, there's no self-determination in a dictatorship.

Oh, and regarding the comment you've posted later: Before Ghadhafi began bombing his own people, more than half the country was protesting against him but since then, people had to flee to the eastern part of Libya and arm themselves assisted by the military there that had joined the protests.

Re:A very sad day

[shutdown -p now]

How do you know it's indiscriminate? I mean other than from what they tell you on TV?

Firing artillery at residential city blocks is kinda indiscriminate by definition. If you want to see an example of what it looks afterwards, have a look at the photos of Grozny circa 1995 or 2000.

Last I checked, Gaddafi did not deny that he's using artillery in his attempt to take over Benghazi (and other rebel cities).

How is NATO bombing any more "discriminate"? You can't hit 112 targets and not hurt any civilians.

Yes. There is a difference between dropping a precision guided bomb at a tank and hitting one or two civilians that stood within 10 meters of it, and firing an artillery barrage that hits a bunch of apartment buildings and kills several dozen.

Of course this depends on what will actually be done. NATO was also claiming to be using precision munitions in Kosovo, but they have classified railroad bridges and TV stations as "military targets" and bombed them (in one case, hitting a civilian train as it was crossing a bridge). That kind of thing is a war crime no less than what Gaddafi is doing. So far, however, the talk has been only about 1) shooting down planes, 2) hitting individual artillery and armor units, and 3) bombing army bases and munition depots. If they stick to that plan, it's good enough, and civilian deaths would be minimal.

Why not just let Gaddafi re-establish law and order in the country?

Because he said, in a public and televised speech, that "those who do not love me do not deserve to live", and so far has been consistently implementing that. Consequently, the only "law and order" he can possibly reestablish is the kind where dissenters are massacred en masse.

Re:A very sad day

[modmans2ndcoming]

I'm pretty sure everyone agrees that we should have rolled into Baghdad in '91 since we had a popular movement of rebels that could have take control of the country once we finished off Sadam's military which would have been easy since they were far more loyal and far more convention, making the war more like the conventional war that we had practiced for since the start of the cold war.

Re:A very sad day

[modmans2ndcoming]

It is no where near the same thing as what Bush did. The only similarity is that the Military was used in Iraq and it is being used here.

The political and social conditions in the country are completely different. Our level and type of involvement is completely different. Our on going involvement will be relegated to a supporting role in 3-5 days.

This is more like Kosovo than Iraq.

Take the black and white glasses off. High contrast reduces the detail.

Re:A very sad day

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed, and as far as France goes? I am glad they took the lead on this one, maybe people will see them for who they really are... A country that saved our asses in the revolution, ignorant Americans always seem to forget that (or just never knew).

Re:A very sad day

[mijelh]

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.

Re:A very sad day

[Anonymous Coward]

Very sad indeed.

Re:A very sad day

[couchslug]

The war was in progress, and tweaking the result to benefit the EU and US is reasonable.

War is how humans resolve disputes. There is no Good, no Bad, only Temporary Advantage and Disadvantage just as in Nature.

Re:A very sad day

[mijelh]

If Texas decided to secede from the Union peacefully, and the USA responded by bombing the civilians, I would for sure support an intervention if there was a chance of success, like there is in Libya.

Re:A very sad day

[couchslug]

"It is why we are repressing protests in Bahrain."

WE? The rulers of that kingdom and their buddies next door have the controls on that adventure.

Just another schismatic squabble between superstitionists, so why not side with the more useful superstitionists?

Re:A very sad day

[countertrolling]

The result is that 50 million people live today in a free democratic country...

Oh? What country is that?

Korea wasn't about Korea. It was about China. The benefits that the South enjoys are entirely ancillary, and it provides a nice showcase for your "free" market economic system, but please, don't call it free and democratic. If we cared about Korea, it would be unified. I would say that war was just as corrupt as all the others.

The other thing is that I merely brought up the wars being fought during my lifetime so far. It appears we'll be in for many more. The empire needs braaains...

Re:A very sad day

[mijelh]

I'll only address point 1:
The reporters from all the agencies that I know, including Al-jazeera, BBC, etc. plus some (at leas apparently) independent twitter accounts reported indiscriminate attacks on civil population. It could either be a world-wide conspiracy or it could just be the true. With no facts supporting the first hypothesis, I'll rather believe the latter.

Re:A very sad day

[quax]

Just to pick from your list two of the worst offenders:

Zimbabwe and Myanmar

If there was an opening to topple these regimes it'll be criminal neglect on any Western government to not pursue the opportunity.

Just because stupid US neo-cons have given humanitarian intervention a bad name doesn't mean there aren't times when they are required and successful. Just asked the people of Sarajevo how they feel about it.

Re:A very sad day

[arekusu_ou]

Another day. Same thing.

Re:A very sad day

[ScentCone]

Korea wasn't about Korea. It was about China.

No, it was about what China was trying to do to Korea. For a start.

If we cared about Korea, it would be unified

Specifiy how you would make that happen without the use of force or economic calamity (vis-a-vis China). Be very specific.

Re:A very sad day

[quax]

UN security council decisions take time. This is a flaw in the system but moving in without a solid resolution and support from the Arab league would have introduced serious risks of additional blow-back.

At any rate as far as UN security resolutions go this one came at lighting speed. Really seems to illustrate that the euros are much better at this diplomacy thing.

I am still surprised the Chines let it pass. After all they went Qaddafi on their own people not too long ago.

Re:A very sad day

[Clsid]

Yes, that strategy worked wonders for North/South Korea, Central American wars, North/South Vietnam, Nationalist(Taiwan)/Communist China among others. You have any idea how much blood was spilled? Plus there are still unresolved conflicts in those areas with the exception of Vietnam. The way the Central American wars was finally over was with a group of neutral countries getting everybody to sit around in a table to negotiate a truce, the same way it was done in Ireland, they way the government pacified the guerrillas in the 1960s here in my country (Venezuela) as opposed to what happened in Colombia, and my point is that violence rarely stops violence when it comes to state affairs. Dialogue on the other hand is rather uncool, boring and slow, but in the end it actually gets the job done. There are two outcomes that I see happening in Lybia, either the country will be split in two or the coalition will somehow try to fetch Gadaffi to try him in court the same way they did with Milosevic.

Re:A very sad day

[quax]

That would have been the time to do it.

But the diplomatic framework needed to be in place as well. I.e. an additional UN security council decision. That's were things fell apart. A shame really. It would have been the golden opportunity to remove Saddam from power without looking like crazy crusaders to the Islamic world. Would have saved the US so much in blood and money.

Re:A very sad day

[quax]

If the perpetrators sit in the UN security council it is very hard to get a resolution against them.

Re:A very sad day

[vadim_t]

Probably would have gone much better, yeah. Also the idea of liberation would have made a lot more sense back then.

Look at Iraq now, just who is the US fighting at the moment? Saddam's army? It's long gone. So who are you liberating and from who now?

Re:A very sad day

[countertrolling]

you are a fucking idiot...

Yes, well, at least I'm getting some sex, and you are mildly retarded if you believe everything you read in American press.. It is correctable.

Re:A very sad day

[quax]

OK, how about Bosnia then?

Re:A very sad day

[Clsid]

The situation is bad but it is not our conflict. If there is an issue between a couple in your neighborhood you don't become involved, even if you know that they are causing a lot of grief to each other. Civil war is one of the worst forms of warfare, but when the US was fighting itself, no one had the right to intervene in favor of the north or the south, and you can say that the government was killing rebels in that case. Using humanitarian reasons is ambiguous in this case since it is a selective use of justice. Just like many posters have said, that will give grounds to start invasions in Yemen and Bahrain right away based on recent events. I personally would not like to see a UN with the authority to be the world police. The French and Chileans were able to topple equally corrupt and dictatorial governments, with France having to deal with all the other monarchic countries going against her, so don't tell me that self-determination of the population does not work, no matter the odds. Mess with enough people enough, and even something as mighty as the Soviet Union will fall under its own weight.

Re:A very sad day

[Clsid]

I have to agree with the last poster. This war is actually "legal" if you will, even if I don't buy it's based on humanitarian reasons. Iraq is a whole different story. The US is a well respected international player so it really needs to abide to this type of procedures, as opposed to what Bush did. Now if you want everybody to think you are a rogue/cowboy country, then by all means go ahead and invade at will.

Re:A very sad day

[Clsid]

And that 50 million people live in the brink of war everyday. In fact they haven't signed peace just an armistice. Well done there. Look up what the Contadora group did in Central America and then maybe we can talk about something far more productive than sending Marines somewhere.

Re:A very sad day

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, yer right, the nerve of the West to attempt knock over a ruthless dictator who has supported the worst sort of despots throughout Africa and who decided his people should have no right to self-determination. What were they thinking? What were you thinking?

Yeah, the West is very respectful of people's self-determination... and you know, the West has never supported dictators (only in Latin America there have been 10+, fully trained and supported by US and its [dirty] War on Communism ), genocide and sicarii.

History is written by the victors, and they often lie.

Re:A very sad day

[Clsid]

What part of Civil War you do not understand? Let me put it easy for you: I T I S N O T O U R P R O B L E M. People were killing each other in the US in 1861 and no one had the right to intervene in favor of the government (North) or the rebels (South). Going there for humanitarian reasons is a bunch of BS, call it what it is, removing somebody that was hated by us from power to impose a friendly government. I actually have no problem with that but of course that doesn't sell well, it's the hypocrisy of the situation that gets to my bones.

Re:A very sad day

[Anonymous Coward]

You are clearly a new american century fanatic with this sort of argument. This isn't an attempt to knock over the dictator. The time for that was weeks ago before the rebels got slaughtered. You probably were all for invading Iraq too. The bottom line is that we don't even have enough money to pay our social security debt and you want us spending money on "knocking over" ruthless dictators. Grow up and face reality and stop watching non-reality tv.

Re:A very sad day

[budgenator]

Well lets see the non-neocon way just shot off a hundred BGM-109 Tomahawk missiles at US$569,000 a pop so that's working out to almost 57 million a day in ammo!

Re:A very sad day

[countertrolling]

Korea was a bargaining chip. We would have given up the whole damn place for the right price. Why else would we allow what happened happen?

So here we are, "saving" Libya.. Why aren't saving the whole continent? It's a mess. It's because we don't give shit about Libya. We want what they have. We need to close the deal. And this is more for France and Italy than us specifically. They have some big weapons deals they don't want to lose. BP just signed a contract recently. They would like to recoup some money from the gulf thing.

We have no credibility. We have no right to meddle. Summer reruns appeared to have started early. Different actors, same script. And the participating audience remembered its lines perfectly. Comic to a degree - Tragedy without end..

Re:A very sad day

[quax]

Let's don't pretend our intervention policy is based on noble motives.

Indeed that'll be silly.

It is a good day when economic interests, international diplomacy and noble motives align once in a while.

This seems to be one of those rare occasions. (The last time we had such a constellation was the campaign to stop the Serbian incursion into Bosnia).

Re:A very sad day

[Anonymous Coward]

it's not the west, you stupid fucking knob. in case you didn't notice, the initial motion was tabled by the uk, france and lebanon, cleared by the un security council, opposed by germany which is the largest and wealthiest nation in europe, and backed by the motherfucking arab league. like the arab league or not, and i don't, they're certainly not western.

was lebanon bribed or coerced in some way to come along with the uk and france? probably, yes. do the arab league see a benefit in the UN mandating a force to go into libya? obviously, yes. is that governed by self-interest? of course, this is international politics where self-interest comes first and all else follows where there's space. does it make it a western attempt to go into libya?

no. it makes it a un resolution for military action against gaddafi's forces, where the bulk of the actual firepower will be provided by western nations with arab nations operating in support roles. interesting to note, if you read any media whatsoever outside of slashdot and fucking wikileaks, that military action started today after a meeting between the uk, france, us, denmark, canada, ireland... and the arab league about how to go about it and what to do.

yeah, that yemen, that's such a western country! fuck those western imperialists!

Re:A very sad day

[arekusu_ou]

The Libyans weren't trying to secede peacefully. They were trying to overthrow Gaddafi by force. Protests of late have been very violent. The difference? Egypt had popular revolution force backed by the military. Libyans? No. Minority.

Re:A very sad day

[Carewolf]

Or when Saddam was gassing his own people, or when he started a war with Iran that got ~900,000 people killed?

That is easy. We were right behind him, supporting him both economical and militarily.. Not that that was a good thing, but the west definitely intervened.

Re:A very sad day

[hedwards]

You do realize that both the UN and the Arab League requested the intervention, right? The Secretary of State was very clear that we wouldn't barge in without the international community's approval. And, I have yet to hear any talk directly of how this is in any way our best interest. Which wasn't the case previously.

This isn't Iraq or Vietnam, we've got a clear objective and one that is relatively straightforward to understand. When it's over we'll be able to assess whether or not it was a success, which hasn't always been the case in the past.

Re:A very sad day

[virgilcaine]

Agreed. Constitution shredded again. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss

Re:A very sad day

[Anonymous Coward]

Errr, get your head out of your parochial little ass, yank boy.

Let's see now. Iraq, George W Bush. A US-led invasion, without UN mandate. Not technically unilateral, but undertaken unilaterally by the USA and only a few allies, and against the advice of many of its other allies, along with much of the rest of the world. Heavily dominated by American troops. Started with heavy air bombing, rapidly followed up with a massive ground invasion. Opposed by the Arab states.

Libya. A UN mandate is produced to protect Libyan civilians by any means, tabled by the UK, France and Lebanon. The US is sceptical and Germany outright opposes it. The motion calls chiefly for a no-fly zone and the shelling of heavy artillery being employed indiscriminately on civilian areas. No ground troops are called for, although the wording of the mandate leaves the option open. While China and Russia abstain, the motion is passed and the mandate issued. America's involvement is really rather slight, involving at present the launching of a number of cruise missiles. Much of the firepower is French, with others provided by the UK, Denmark, Ireland and Canada. The Arab League is involved in planning and will be involved militarily, even if in a support and logistics role rather than a frontline one. Should ground troops be required, expect them to be Arab.

I don't see much of a role for this Democratic President of whom you speak. Yes, he's been talking about it. Yes, the USA is involved. Is it the same thing? No. Does it have the same aims? No. Is it a unilateral attack on a state? No. Is it US-led? No. I know it hurts that things can happen in the world that your country doesn't instigate but, believe me, they do and this is one. And your president, like him or not, is a big enough man to go along with something that he didn't start and provide manpower and firepower to fulfill America's part of it -- even though he didn't actually start it and his administration was initially rather sceptical! Wow!

In what way is it effectively the same thing? You've got to be a fucking lackwit to think that. Regardless of the motives you believe the nations have, any comparison drawn between Afghanistan or Iraq and Libya beyond the most banal is retarded. Regardless of whether you believe intervention to be right or wrong, you can't say they're "effectively the same thing". Arab support alone is an enormous difference.

And in what world outside your borders is he getting "near-universal praise"? We're barely mentioning him at all -- on a level, at most, with Sarkozy, and that overstates Obama's role a bit. For it to be "near-universal" we'd have to be creaming our pants over him too. And fuck, if even the BRITISH aren't creaming their pants over a US president when a war is on then you seriously have to accept that he's not getting "near-universal praise". Not because we don't like him, that's irrelevent, but because he's done fuck all to be praised for in that way.

Grow the fuck up. There is a world outside America's borders, and it runs. And this operation would have run even without American firepower - or without American support in any way. Thankfully the USA hasn't and, at present, is unlikely to actually *act* like an asshole and refuse to take part in an action that is basically intended to be humanitarian (regardless of what it actually turns out to be). But if it did, things would be going exactly as they are right now, except Britain would be short of a few dozen more cruise missiles to make up for the ones the Americans wouldn't have fired. Oooooooh. Scary.

Re:A very sad day

[Hydian]

You don't think that happened in Iraq too?

Re:A very sad day

[budgenator]

Julian Assange is an egomanical asshat with all of the finesse of a bull in a china shop and personally I wouldn't piss in his mouth if his teeth were on fire, and I'm not waiting for the end of the day either, it's his fault. Yet I do find it emotionally satisfying that his underlying agenda for what he's doing is blowing up in his face. Even after the release of the state department cables, it seems when there is a bully to be dealt with, the trusted adult that is called upon is still the US and it's allies.

Re:A very sad day

[Anonymous Coward]

What if the armed uprising is in a pro western country? Will you also support the rebels?

I somehow doubt it. You will probably be supporting the existing government or try not to get involved in any way at all. Bahrain's government is bringing in foreign troops to take care of the demostrators.

Why are you not involved there? Is it because the current existing government there is pro western somewhat?

This will all end badly. That much is sure - you are just breeding the next bunch of terrorists / people hating you enough to die to hurt you. Hope you enjoy your returns in investment in the next few years.

Re:A very sad day

[Fnkmaster]

You are joking, right? Estimated cost of the war in Iraq is $2.4 trillion, in total, by the time we are exited fully from the country. Spending a few hundred million on ammo to wipe out Qadaffi's air capabilities is less than a hundredth of a percent of what we will have spent on the War in Iraq. I mean, in Iraq the *rounding errors* are measured in billions, so this doesn't even qualify for rounding error.

Re:A very sad day

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, to be fair, the way it seems to you is of absolutely zero importance, unless you're actually getting all the intelligence reports out of Libya (which are really very strong given that even fucking journalists, with good cameras and instant communication with Europe, are sitting around in Libya right now, let alone the various professional secret services), getting all the analysis from government departments and private think-tanks, and unless you're talking with the generals of your armies and the representatives of the Arab League. Something tells me that none of this is true and you're just another self-important geek. How about you get a sense of perspective and realise that how it seems "to you" is totally unimportant.

This is even more true given you live in America with its notoriously shit international news. I've watched CNN for a good few years now - as the only English-language news channel broadcast on TV where I've lived you see quite a bit of it - and I hear it's amongst your best and most respected channels. If that's true, that's seriously worrying. I've also spent a small amount of time in America and seen a bit of what passes for international news otherwise, and it's very depressing. I just can't say with as much certainty because I don't know all your other shitty smarmy technicolor self-obsessed news channels as well as I know CNN.

Re:A very sad day

[melted]

Or maybe they just need to sell ads.

Here's an account from a Russian dude on the ground who says Al Jazeera is greatly overdramatizing the situation (translated): http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Foleg-shein.livejournal.com%2F286597.html

Seems to me like the situation is nowhere near as bad as the media tell you it is.

Re:A very sad day

[Anonymous Coward]

One problem at a time. And this is a good start, when China and Russia are cooperating with EU and US.

Re:A very sad day

[harley78]

"you people"....who you callin' you people?

Re:A very sad day

[rubycodez]

knocking over that one we were just sending billions of dollars ? Does that mean anything to your patriotism-spewing brain?

Re:A very sad day

[Anonymous Coward]

Pure Bullshit. The US trained and supported lots of Latin American dictators and genocide, and no one gave a fuck.

Hypocrite.

Re:A very sad day

[Martin Blank]

Most (not all) of the nations that you mention are far cries from what Libya is doing. Cuba is opening up; it may be at a creakingly slow pace for most, but it is happening. Zimbabwe has seemed to be on the tipping point of reform for a few years now, though it never quite seems to happen. Ivory Coast looked like it might be on the right path until the recent election, the results of which were deemed to be free and fair by international observers, was contested by the incumbent president, who refuses to step down. UN boots are on the ground in DR Congo, totaling some 18,000 uniformed personnel. Over time, the group has gone from a monitoring and observation mission to one taking a more active role in the protection of civilians.

In some of the other cases, you have to pick your fights. The world is, in general, not in a shape to launch an attack on either Iran or North Korea. Opposition elements can be supported, but the costs of a full-scale war in either case is beyond what we can reasonably sustain on an optional basis. Iran, at least, has a chance of getting a reform in place; it may look unthinkable, but the chances of an overthrow in Tunisia and Egypt were generally deemed zero just a year ago. There are horrible situations happening in many countries, but you do what you can, where you can. It may not make many people--or even the majority--happy, but even combined, the world does not have the resources to topple all of the dictators at once.

Re:A very sad day

[Anonymous Coward]

You think I am parroting the American press?

You are mildly retarded period.

Re:A very sad day

[mijelh]

And why should I believe this guy over everybody else? Al-jazeera, BBC, and even the individuals using tweeter might have a hidden agenda, but this guy is a Member of the State Duma of Russia, and a declared Marxist revolutionary. That's pretty much as non-neutral as you can get.

Re:A very sad day

[MightyMartian]

I often wonder why guys like you so readily become the mouthpieces of monsters like Gaddafi. Is it stupidity or cowardice?

Re:A very sad day

[MightyMartian]

Not only that but Obama wanted to avoid the accusations that Bush had got nailed with about unwanted American-centric interventions. Clinton was beating the pavement big time to get a coalition not just of the usual NATO suspects but also some Arab countries, not to mention convincing China and Russia to abstain (which, when you really look at it, particularly so far as China is concerned, is a major sea change in international relations). I'd say, despite the appearances of taking a week or two too long, this is a pretty substantial foreign policy victory for Obama, actually constructing a wide-based coalition to take on Gaddafi.

Re:A very sad day

[nbauman]

Now where there is an outright civil war it's different. It's clear the people want somebody else in the ruling position and that they will fight to get there. And that they have some sort of plan for when they do that. Of course it's not a guarantee, but the chances of something good coming out of that is much higher.

Who are these rebels and what reason do you have to think that they'll be any better than Ghadaffi?

Re:A very sad day

[nbauman]

When the hell did the left pick up this crazy interventionism?

If you consider Obama to be on the "left," then you don't have any idea of what the left is about in this country.

Or if you consider Kennedy and Johnson, who got us bogged down in the Vietnam war, to be on the "left," then you don't have any idea of what the left was about for the last 50 years.

Re:A very sad day

[countertrolling]

Wow, you are a perfect throwback, word for word. I'm awestruck. This is so amazing to see such an accurate reenactment of times long past. Memories suddenly rushing back. And the sudden realization that our protests went unheard then like they do now. You will create every pretense possible. You are incapable of saying "no" to war.

Re:A very sad day

[Daniel Phillips]

On the face of it you are a complete moron.

Re:A very sad day

[MightyMartian]

There's a pro-Gaddafi military and a bunch of hired mercenaries suppressing an insurgency. The majority of Libyans in Gaddafi-controlled territory are keeping their bloody heads down.

Re:A very sad day

[MightyMartian]

And you are incapable of seeing when it is necessary. You live in a cocoon of privilege and liberty, and will jealously guard it from the oppressed, convincing yourself that their continued misery makes you more moral, not less.

Re:A very sad day

[countertrolling]

You don't have a clue my friend how I live. I can assure you it's not inside your walled garden. And I have seen the other end of your big stick. It is you who are of the privileged who thinks he knows what's best for others. Teddy Roosevelt "caring for" the Filipinos. You are NOT wanted. GTFO!

Shame on all of you

Re:A very sad day

[CodeBuster]

People were killing each other in the US in 1861 and no one had the right to intervene

At the time nobody much wanted to. War can be quite profitable, especially when you can sell supplies to both sides.

Going there for humanitarian reasons is a bunch of BS, call it what it is, removing somebody that was hated by us from power to impose a friendly government.

Obama and others have said precisely that. Gadhafi has to go. The humanitarian part is that we get him out by force before we have another pol-pot style killing fields on our hands. I don't think that the coalition currently bombing Libya has been coy about their objectives. They want Gadhafi out, that much has been made abundantly clear.

I actually have no problem with that but of course that doesn't sell well, it's the hypocrisy of the situation that gets to my bones.

What hypocrisy? The world gave Gadhafi an ultimatum and we followed through when he dared to call our bluff. Now the cards are on the table for everyone to see and Gadhafi has clearly lost.

Re:A very sad day

[Anonymous Coward]

4. How did our oil get under their sand?

Re:A very sad day

[CodeBuster]

Amen. Sometimes I wonder if the "peace at any price" crowd actually lives on the same planet; they are in desperate need of a reality check here.

Re:A very sad day

[TapeCutter]

This is not about your petty domestic infighting, it's international politics. The US is receiving "near-universal praise" because this time US policy actually matches it's rehtoric. Respecting UN procedure is as democratic as international politics gets, the "Bush doctrine" is the exact opposite and basically states the US will do whatever it wants regardless of what the rest of the world thinks.

Re:A very sad day

[countertrolling]

Yeah, I read the article... about 47 years ago...

Re:A very sad day

[haruchai]

Save your vitriol for those who deserve it - the lying, cheating, stealing, self-serving assholes who do the deeds that Assange exposes. They are the real problem, he's mainly an annoyance. And, he's only at the end of the chain; it's other people who go to the trouble of actually stealing the documents.

I'd feel better about the US as a "trusted adult" if they hadn't done so much to put and keep the murderous bullies in power - they've been doing this for far too long and it has to stop. And Americans can be blindingly stupid - preaching personal freedom, democracy and capitalism and yet doing so much to enrich the Arabs, Chinese and OPEC. Not to mention bankrupting themselves in the process ( mostly through the failure of financial oversight but the current wars did play a big role )

Re:A very sad day

[Anonymous Coward]

Why stop at the genocide in Rwanda? We could go full Godwin on his point of view on war.

Re:A very sad day

[mjwx]

Just to pick from your list two of the worst offenders:

Zimbabwe and Myanmar

Mugabe has a lot of support from the Zim people unfortunately. He may brutally suppress his opponents but his supporters dont seem to mind.

As for Myanmar, the important US ally Thailand would shit enough bricks to rebuild Bangkok 20 KM down the road. They think the amount of illegal Burmese workers are bad now, wait until bombs start dropping.

Re:A very sad day

[dryeo]

Why shouldn't Texas, assuming a large majority of Texans vote for it, be able to secede from the Union?
If Texas really wanted to secede I'd be all in favour of sanctions against the rest of the United States of America for trying to stop it.
Personally I think secession should require a super majority, much the same as a super majority is required for changing most countries constitutions.

Re:A very sad day

[Anonymous Coward]

'this is international politics where self-interest comes first and all else follows where there's space'

Zuerst kommt das Fressen, dann die Moral!

Re:A very sad day

[Clsid]

But you are aware that the resolution was not approved on those grounds? I mean, it does not give the authority to remove Gaddafi from power. So if your ultimate goal is to remove him from power then using a line like "protecting civilians" as the main goal in the UN resolution is what I call hypocrisy.

Re:A very sad day

[countertrolling]

You must be one of those <Air Force sockpuppets> I've been reading about. I mean, that wicked argument you just presented there. Nobody could stand up to that. You're the guys sending all those tweets "from Libya" calling for help, right?

Re:A very sad day

[omfgnosis]

That's a tough question, because there's a detail you left out. The US *did* intervene, on behalf of the Hussein regime, authorizing air strikes against anti-regime rebels. There's legitimate room for debate about whether we should choose sides in a rebellion of that sort, but there is no question that what we did do was worse than either of the options you presented.

I think a case can be made, especially in the context of a world where small events can trigger eruptions of chaos the likes of which we've never seen before, that we have an obligation to be on the "right side" of events like this where we can find a "right side", guided by moral principles rather than economic and geopolitical concerns. But where we can't, or even won't, do that, we at least have an obligation not to be on the decidedly "wrong side". Which puts us in a pretty awkward position, being on the "wrong side" of quite a lot already. There's no guarantee that by abandoning the horrible regimes we support throughout that region we would be ensuring victory for genuine improvement, but we are certainly impeding it by maintaining those regimes.

Re:A very sad day

[melted]

Where did you get that from? I mean about the Duma and stuff. One reason to believe this guy is because unlike BBC he's not trying to sell you anything.

Re:A very sad day

[omfgnosis]

That's a weird metric to use to justify intervention. Either they were right or they weren't, and either they should have been repressed or they shouldn't have. It's inconceivable that there would have been intervention on their behalf in any case, China is and was just too powerful for such an intervention to be embraced by those doing the intervening. That said, I really don't know if they asked for outside help. That might be a better metric. Don't you think?

Re:A very sad day

[Clsid]

countertroll, I was just watching the movie Carlos (the new one) plus watching this whole Lybian thing unfold and arrived at the same conclusion. The world is full of crap so I think I'll get a boat and start doing some fishing for a change. Life is too precious to waste it in politics with people who don't even understand they are being played at.

Re:A very sad day

[omfgnosis]

You're fucking kidding right?

Re:A very sad day

[omfgnosis]

Where were we during the genocides in sub-Saharan Africa?

Without more specifics, "probably arming the belligerents" is a good guess.

Or when Saddam was gassing his own people, or when he started a war with Iran that got ~900,000 people killed?

This is much easier to answer accurately. We were supplying arms, WMD supplies, financing and diplomatic support.

Re:A very sad day

[Draek]

Not really. The metric isn't "were they right or not?" but rather "is there a strong possibility of leaving the country a better place if we intervene or not?". In China, it's just that any intervention would've likely resulted in a much worse enviroment for all involved, but here the revolution actually has a chance of succeeding if provided with proper support.

Re:A very sad day

[19thNervousBreakdown]

WHAT! How dare you! Thing never change! Once you form an opinion, it is your moral duty to stick to that opinion, regardless of any new information or circumstances. You are an indecisive coward, drifting on the winds of reality.

Re:A very sad day

[srussia]

Yes. There is a difference between dropping a precision guided bomb at a tank and hitting one or two civilians that stood within 10 meters of it, and firing an artillery barrage that hits a bunch of apartment buildings and kills several dozen.

If you believe that, then the obvious solution is to supply Gaddafi with precision guided bombs and Predator drones so he can take out the insurgents "surgically" with collateral damage limited to just one or two civilians within 10 meters of them, well maybe a bit more if the insurgents are using human shields.

Re:A very sad day

[Skywolfblue]

I personally would not like to see a UN with the authority to be the world police.

Why not? That's kinda what the UN is suppose to be doing. The only thing that's a shame is they haven't been MORE active. The UN should be the one doing it, not the US. So turn your head, cover your ears, and whistle while crimes against civilian populations/humanity are committed? There comes a time where interfering in other people's affairs is necessary. Civil wars between armies is one thing, but when war crimes are committed against civilians it's time for somebody to step in.

The French and Chileans were able to topple equally corrupt and dictatorial governments, with France having to deal with all the other monarchic countries going against her, so don't tell me that self-determination of the population does not work, no matter the odds. Mess with enough people enough, and even something as mighty as the Soviet Union will fall under its own weight.

How many bodies will pave the way to that "eventuality"? Should we turn our back on the chance to lower that number at every opportunity?

Re:A very sad day

[rve]

who has supported the worst sort of despots throughout Africa

I agree with the other parts of your statement, but this one is a little silly. The major powers (US, USSR, UK and France) have been the ones supporting ruthless dictators for political reasons, while Khadaffi had more of a habit of supporting insurgents, such as the PLO and the ANC, one of the reasons why the other ruthless dictators don't like him much, and fleeing the country isn't a serious option for him.

Re:A very sad day

[cdp0]

No, but sometimes the use of force is the only way to stop someone like Gaddafi from continuing to use force as he slaughters his own people.

I am sure a similar argument was used before "helping" Iraq too, and look what it turned into. I just hope this time it'll end when the dictator is gone (or at least weak enough) and the people of Libya will be allowed to make their own future. Let's not turn the rebels fighting against the oppressive government into the insurgents fighting against the invading force.

Re:A very sad day

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, and that internal British Empire conflict in 1776 wasn't France's problem, they should have no intervened and let the British navy land and crush the rebellion.

Perhaps learning a little of your history before commenting again could help you look a bit less stupid in future.

Re:A very sad day

[blind biker]

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).

OH no, don't delude yourself. No matter what kind of uprising happens in Iran, both China and Russia will do their best to stop any actions against the regime. The same wasn't true for Lybia, i.e. neither China nor Russia (and this time, not even the Arab League) have much interest in Gaddafi. That's all the UN righteousness right there: who has the interests.

Re:A very sad day

[dominious]

Normally I would agree with you. The US the big bully etc. But the rest of the world doesn't want an unstable Libya because Europe will be affected negatively. So we protect ourselves YES that's what anyone would do! (Europe and US are together). Moreover, the goverment of Libya seems to be no saint and they kill their own people. So we also protect others in the meantime. Ofcourse, if we were not affected by this, we wouldn't give a flying fuck about it.

semi-humor: Haven't you ever played RISK? /semi-humor

Re:A very sad day

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course no tomahawk was ever fired in either the Iraq war of even Afghanistan. In fact, not a single piece of ammunition was ever spent in those wars.

Re:A very sad day

[mijelh]

In the link you provided, click "Personal Information" or just google "Oleg Shein"

Re:A very sad day

[nwmann]

Perhaps because this time it is UN backed? I don't know enough about the UN to know if their motives are atleast mostly pure. Atleast it is more of a consensus of the people of the world than a single country attaking another.

Re:A very sad day

[PhobosK]

Well... it seems a few here have lived in the world of the real communist propaganda.... what i can say is that it was really far far behind today's "democratic" one in terms of maturity ...
The truth is that when money talks, conscious is always asleep... :S
It seems to me that in the near feature we will find a very bad dictator even on Mars... and we will go there to help the innocent and oppressed Martians to get rid of him.... I wonder what will be the real deal then...

Re:A very sad day

[Anonymous Coward]

"We aren't wanted there? Ask the protesters. They want us there."

You mean those same 'protesters' who are and have been armed? Or did you miss that part? Maybe this will refresh your memory.

Re:A very sad day

[shutdown -p now]

And that 50 million people live in the brink of war everyday. In fact they haven't signed peace just an armistice. Well done there.

Do you think they'd prefer to live under Kim?

then maybe we can talk about something far more productive than sending Marines somewhere.

Who is talking about sending Marines anywhere? UN resolution for Libya specifically forbids ground invasion.

Re:A very sad day

[shutdown -p now]

What if the armed uprising is in a pro western country? Will you also support the rebels? I somehow doubt it. You will probably be supporting the existing government or try not to get involved in any way at all. Bahrain's government is bringing in foreign troops to take care of the demostrators.

I'm not sure who "you" means here. Me personally? Yeah, I'd support the rebels, if a "pro western country" is the likes of Bahrain or Saudi Arabia.

USA? I'm not a US citizen. In any case, just because US has its own underhanded reasons for getting involved (which I frankly don't see in this particular case), it doesn't mean that they cannot work towards a good goal.

Re:A very sad day

[shutdown -p now]

That is true also. In fact, it was quite surprising that Russia and China were willing to stand aside for this one - I fully expected that to be a NATO only operation.

Re:A very sad day

[sirambrose]

The Arab League may support the action, but that doesn't mean that the majority of the citizens in Arab League countries support it. A substantial number of those countries have large protest movements pressing for democracy. Some of them would rather shift the focus away from their own efforts to suppress dissent.

I don't think that the objective is clear either. We say that we are acting to prevent harm to civilians, but I don't think anyone really wants to indefinitely enforce a partition of Libya. If the rebels don't win in the next few years, the countries enforcing the no fly zone will probably expand their involvement just like the US did in Iraq.

Re:A very sad day

[vadim_t]

Who are these rebels

As far as I can tell, the citizens of the country

and what reason do you have to think that they'll be any better than Ghadaffi?

That's easy, because the citizens decided they want somebody else in charge. If they get what they want, it'll be better for them.

Re:A very sad day

[nbauman]

Where did you read that? Read it more carefully. "Citizens" can be almost anybody. Ghadaffi is also a citizen, and so are the people who are supporting him.

This article argues that the rebels are supporters of Al Qaeda. http://www.ctc.usma.edu/harmony/pdf/CTCForeignFighter.19.Dec07.pdf Is that true?

Are we just setting up al Quaeda in Libya, just as we set up the Taliban in Afghanistan?

Re:A very sad day

[davester666]

Great news everyone. The war is OVER.

Yes, it's been Godwin'ed.

From http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/africa/110320/libya-lybia-gaddafi-war-us-nato-jets-air-nazi-hitler: ...
Muammar Gaddafi says Libyans are armed for a long war and that allied forces were "the new Nazis." ...
The leaders of Britain, France and the United States will "fall like Hitler... Mussolini," he said. ...

Re:A very sad day

[sourcerror]

Protesters were peaceful until they got shot at with machine guns.

Re:A very sad day

[shutdown -p now]

To me it seems like there's a pro-Gaddafi majority that's suppressing an insurgency in the distant provinces.

It's not clear if either side is the majority. The reason why Gaddafi forces have made significant gains is that they control most of country's military aviation and heavy artillery. It's kinda hard to fight bombs and shells with bullets.

Re:A very sad day

[Clsid]

Of course it wasn't France's problem, they took a calculated gamble against their common enemy just like they are doing now. Oh wait, you thought the French were helping out of their good hearts? Lol. And before you go on and call everybody else stupid, just take a look in the mirror.

Re:A very sad day

[Clsid]

Try to follow the thread. We we talking about the Marines in the Korean context. I think it's best for the Koreans to decide what they wanted to live under or fight for whatever they thought was right. If it was full democracy, go for it, if it was Kim, then what the hell, one more enemy but it is their country you know.

Re:A very sad day

[Clsid]

The UN is supposed to promote peace, not war. More about promoting dialogue. In either case it is not supposed to become a world government in itself. Read this paper on the matter which pretty much reflects a huge chunk of US Foreign Policy: http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/52425/jesse-helms/saving-the-un-a-challenge-to-the-next-secretary-general So if interfering in other people's affairs is necessary why is the international community supporting the fight in Bahrain AGAINST the rebels and doing nothing in Yemen, just like they did in Rwanda not so long ago. Besides even the Lybian issue is starting to get messy, as this Arab League recent statement shows: "What is happening in Libya differs from the aim of imposing a no-fly zone, and what we want is the protection of civilians and not the bombardment of more civilians," This is regime change disguised under humanitarian action. Crimes against the civilian population is just the excuse to get in. Hell, there are crimes against the civilian population in Palestine and nobody gives a damn, and it's not only Israel, Egypt is also blocking their side of the frontier. So try to come up with something better than "war crimes are comitted against civilians". Read this if you are still not convinced: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5470047.ece

Re:A very sad day

[Clsid]

Yes, we have seen it before: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bush_mission_accomplished.jpg

Re:A very sad day

[CodeBuster]

The language was worded so as to cause Gadhafi to be pushed out of power. That is how the "big game" works in diplomacy, nobody ever says precisely what they want to do, they use code words instead because that is how pleasant fictions, like international law, are preserved. Gadhafi, on the other hand, speaks bluntly as a barbarian would and so that is how the world treats him.

Re:A very sad day

[shutdown -p now]

I think it's best for the Koreans to decide what they wanted to live under or fight for whatever they thought was right.

You speak as if a nation was one collective consciousness - it's not. It consists of people. What if half of those want democracy, and the other half want Kim - and to force anyone from the first half to abide by their choice as well?

Re:A very sad day

[CarbonShell]

Seriously? Have you checked the other countries?
in Bahrain the surrounding Gulf states have even sent in troops to 'secure the infrastructure' which basically frees up the military and police from such work so that they can fully focus on the rebellious civilians. Here the civilians are not violent and are getting killed.

In Libya the rebells also have military equipment! And the Libyans are using their military against these armed rebels.
Same shit the US & UK are doing in Iraq & Afghanistan.

I honestly wonder where people are getting their news from.

Don't get me wrong, I'd rather get rid of Gaddahfi sooner then later, but let's be realistic pls.
These on and off again relationships with dictators is a flipping joke. He was bad before, then he was good, now he is bad again.
Did HE change in any way? No.
Where are the interventions when people in middle or south Africa are killing each other? Where are they in middle and south America?

Fact is, we want the oil to flow. And while we can piss off Libya (a country the other oil countries also do not like) we would not dare doing the same in certain other countries.
That make *US* the hypocrites.

This is the Iraq BS all over again.

Re:A very sad day

[CarbonShell]

I never said that. But that does seem to be YOUR position when it comes to most other countries.
Fact is, you would not dare piss off the wrong countries, so you only go after 'common enemies'.
You do shit elsewhere, but in this oil rich country with your on and off-again relationship to their dictator you know you go ahead.
And when all is over, the next puppet will be inserted and it is business as usual.

You did not give a shit in Egypt because if the rebellion failed, you wanted to keep your good connections.
Same with Yemen, Bahrain or Belarus.
Nah, let's not piss off the Oppressors that give us oil or allow us bases to attack other countries.

So maybe next time, why not support the rebellion in a country because they want democracy, and not just the next 'bad guy with oil you want to secure for your own companies'.

Re:A very sad day

[mijelh]

But that does seem to be YOUR position when it comes to most other countries

You have no right to play the straw man on me. Don't put words on my lips. You DID criticise the intervention based solely on what "we" did on similar situations, hence my comment: to point out that you didn't enter on the debate of whether or not "we" should intervene in Libya.
But then, you came and started throwing all that BS about my "position when it comes to most other countries" and I cannot help but be pissed, as I never made an statement on Slashdot about such a thing, and for sure you don't even know what my country is to start with.

Take down Iran too...

[Anonymous Coward]

...might as well, right?

protests

[dlt074]

sure hope all the people opposed to Bush attacking other countries come out and protest... i'm not holding my breath though. it's ok, as long as it's their guy ordering the killing.

hypocrites

Re:protests

[preaction]

The people against Bush were against the questionable intelligence of WMDs by the Hussein regime. This UN-sanctioned action is to protect civilians against a violent quelling of a peaceful uprising. Can you see a difference there?

Re:protests

[Vinegar Joe]

Bullshit. Saddam Hussein was a fucking monster who had more blood on his hands than Qaddafi has ever dreamed of.

Re:protests

[geek]

You mean like the 16 UN resolutions Saddam ignored? Like the UN inspectors he kicked out of the country? Like when he gassed his own people?

Re:protests

[dlt074]

so nobody ever said things like "NO BLOOD FOR OIL!" and we never once said that Saddam had to go because he was killing his own people?

how dare we do something as silly as try and rid somebody with a known history of using WMD's against his own people, of possession of WMD's he admitted to having at one time but couldn't prove where they were.

Europe needs its oil and Obama is going to get it to them. humanitarian aid?! what makes these people better and more deserving of our "help" then the ones in Iraq and Afghanistan?

fact is, as long as Obama is ordering the killing, you're all good with it... what i can't figure out is why? oh and the UN was on board for all of Bush's wars too. so you can forget throwing their worthless name in there in an attempt to add legitimacy to this farce.

oh that's right, you're HYPOCRITES!

Re:protests

[cpu6502]

Nope.
But then I agree with the Swiss viewpoint on most things (stay neutral).

Re:protests

[reboot246]

I thought wikileaks exposed the fact that there were indeed wmd in Iraq? Maybe not nukes, but lots of chemical weapons.

Re:protests

[gilleain]

Bullshit. Saddam Hussein was a fucking monster who had more blood on his hands than Qaddafi has ever dreamed of.

That's beside the point - it's not a game of "who is the worst dictator?". If it was, perhaps Idi Amin - who killed hundreds of thousands of his people - would have been deposed. Oddly enough, Gaddafi gave him military support at one time, but Amin died in Saudi (I'm reading this stuff off wikipedia, naturally :)

Of course getting rid of Saddam was good in of itself; but part of the reason why it hasn't gone ... so smoothly since the actual invasion might be that the Iraqis don't feel 'liberated'. This is why the nations attacking Libya at the moment are trying to do it without landing troops. Well, except us British, who sent a diplomat with some special forces as protection, and got chucked out of the country again. Leading to the classic quote from one of the rebels "Why didn't they ask us? There is a proper way to do these things...".

Re:protests

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Like when he gassed his own people?

... which happened at a time when the US considered him our best buddy in the Middle East and enthusiastically supported his regime because he was fighting Big Bad Iran, yeah. Like that.

There was really one and only one point when the US and our allies had both the moral authority and the military opportunity to do in Iraq what we're currently doing (or at least starting to do) in Libya: at the end of Desert Storm, when we had the largest allied military force assembled since WW2 waiting just across the border in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, and a genuine popular uprising took place against Hussein's battered but still powerful army. Instead, we stood back and let the rebels get slaughtered. As one of the people who would have been fighting that war, having just done my part in fighting the last war (you know, the one that we won) I can't decide to this day if I wish we'd gone in or not. But I have no reservations in saying that doing what we did instead -- letting the serious internal opposition get wiped out, maintaining sanctions and a no-fly zone for over a decade with the inevitable hardening of national will, and then going to war over something that had nothing to do with Iraq or Hussein at all -- was unmitigated stupidity.

Re:protests

[preaction]

I agree mostly with this, reduce our army of conquerors, keep our national guard, and only use our forces as part of UN actions. I would agree with it even more if the UN Security Council wasn't broken as designed, but that's an issue for another day.

Re:protests

[shutdown -p now]

Crimes against humanity on a large scale, thoroughly documented with mountains of evidence?

UN resolution giving a go-ahead for military intervention? Check.

Multi-national action with no dominance by US forces (heck, it's spearheaded by France!)? Check.

Precise point air and missile strikes on military targets, with no occupation and takeover? Check.

Sounds like legitimate military action to enforce peace to me. What does it have to do with the illegal, unilateral ground invasion of Iraq, under falsified pretext, and in defiance of world popular opinion, by US forces under Bush command?

Re:protests

[blind monkey 3]

You mean like the 16 UN resolutions Saddam ignored? Like the UN inspectors he kicked out of the country? Like when he gassed his own people?

Sadly when Saddam was gassing his own people, we were all looking the other way. Other countries have ignore UN resolutions, UN resolutions rely on 5 countries agreeing, it is not neccessarily the will of the majority.
I think we should have removed Saddam with desert storm but - as usual it seems - politics won the day and stopped the war before the job was finished. The argument that it would have fractured the alliance and the west would be busy running Iraq (according to Bush and Cheney) are, in my opinion, rather flimsy.

I was and still am against the second war in Iraq. The people are a lot worse off, fundamentalists have moved in, Iran is sitting in the box seat regarding influence there and the country is rife with corruption (I know - pot, meet kettle). An invasion of a country justifies military intervention (Iraq and Kuwait) - Purported possession of "WMDs" does not (imo).

Regarding Gadaffi, I believe removing the dictator is long overdue but I hope we (the west - or any other "interested party" for that matter) are not busy selecting who the winner of their "free and fair" election is.

Re:protests

[sznupi]

An invasion of a country justifies military intervention (Iraq and Kuwait)

Well, the funny thing with this one is how it was apparently almost green-lit... (love how cabkle leaks (quite interesting, this one) seem to be used now among sources for such ;> )

Re:protests

[gtall]

The reason the Iraqis do not feel liberated is because now they must attempt to run a country which is still fighting the same civil war started in 632 when Muhammad bit the dust. It has nothing to do with how they were liberated from Saddam, what matters is they were liberated to resume killing each other over dusty bones from a probable late stage schizophrenic who heard voices and somehow presumed it to be the arch-Angel Gabriel. Allah, being all powerful, is also all *other* and does not interact with this world. However, a little known escape hatch allows his angels to do the communication in his stead....very tidy...one might even say, predictable...and I'm not even a prophet...errr...not to my knowledge, at least not according to voices in my head....

Muhammad, being a good little petty dictator with a messiah complex (Q-Man, take note), "predicted" he was the last prophet. All very neat if you want to be known as the Big Cheese long after you've given up the ghost. And Muslims have been killing each other over his legacy ever since, which is somewhat surprising given that it is peaceful religion...as long as you are Muslim....the right kind of Muslim, that is.

The reason the West is not landing troops is because the West doesn't have the balls left to take out a ruthless dictator. It has nothing to do with somehow preserving a sense of allowing the Libyans to have their own personal revolution. One should recognize a weenie when one sees one, and Europe has been weenies for so long no one expects any more of them. So they can comfortably hide behind their years of weenieness and do nothing more than shoot a few cruise missiles and fly a few French planes around to act like they somehow have balls again. They don't have the military muscle left to do anymore than that because they've spent too long hiding behind American power. The best thing the U.S. could do is pull out of NATO and tell Europe we simply do not care anymore about their sanctimonious asses.

Re:protests

[gtall]

Yep, they were a big help during WWII. There's another notion of being neutral, that of being morally bankrupt.

Re:protests

[blind monkey 3]

Yes, I'm aware of the possibility that the US said "go to it" (and the slant drilling practices employed by Kuwait) but my attitude is an invasion is an invasion regardless of who says it's fine by me. The US does not have the jurisdiction to decide such things - they may have the power to enforce things either way but trust them at your own peril, the primary interest of the US is the US.

Re:protests

[Martin Blank]

They were random leftovers that had been lost by the Iraqi military, and in most cases were worthless, though a few insurgents tried to make use of them. Even in the rare instance that they did go off, they didn't mix properly and resulted in only a few injuries, most or all not serious.

Re:protests

[omfgnosis]

I'm not an Obama supporter (I voted for someone else... Winona LaDuke, if you must know, and I was embarrassed when I found out she endorsed Obama), and I oppose the vast majority of his political program. I think his policies are by and large a continuation of Bush policies, which I also opposed. Including his foreign policy, including Iraq, and including Afghanistan. I was opposed to the Iraq war on principle (not because it was a mistake, it was morally wrong). And I support this no-fly zone; I think it's one of the few things Obama's been on the right side of since 2008. I was on the fence regarding the NFZ (knowing the precedence of the devastation of Iraq under a NFZ regime in the 90s, under Bush I/Clinton) until I heard exactly what the rebels were saying: we don't have time for you to debate this, you need to do it now. Is that hypocrisy? I don't think so. It's not my fault that details don't enter into your analysis, and it's not my fault that you reflexively find lowest common denominator categories to place people's political positions into so that you can berate them.

There is a fundamental difference between Libya and Iraq, which is that a huge civilian population came out demanding limited, specific outside help. Beyond that fundamental difference, there are implementation differences: instituting a NFZ wasn't led by a political agenda in imperialist countries incubated over a decade earlier; it wasn't supported by an obvious campaign of deception and intimidation; it wasn't part of an imperial "remaking the region" strategy, in fact it was in reaction to the region attempting to remake itself. There's far less in common than different in these cases. And if the western strategy exceeds its mandate from the Libyan people, you can be sure those supporters who opposed the Iraq war will not follow.

Re:protests

[omfgnosis]

I should add: the US could have intervened in Iraq and been on the right side, by enforcing the NFZ rather than authorizing Iraq to use its airspace for military purposes during the 1991 uprisings. They instead supported Hussein's repression of that uprising, and the rest of the Iraq strategy is tied to that decision.

Re:protests

[sznupi]

So, do you try hard to ignore all involved in such NATO operations as ex-Yugoslavia or Afghanistan or just are blissfully unaware? (and remember, "per capita" is what matters; also, "who has the largest due payments to the UN")

(and, I assume you hold such view towards pretty much any religion? :> )

Re:protests

[cpu6502]

That's the first time I ever heard "morally bankrupt" described for someone who refuses to kill. Most be some neocon bullshit.

Re:protests

[Anonymous Coward]

Because they were bankrupt only morally. Made cash on helping nazis. Libertarian heroes.

Re:protests

[Anonymous Coward]

No comment from a morally bankrupted?

Re:protests

[sznupi]

Nonetheless... that suddenly makes such things like this discreet "go to it" an easy way to justify your inter^H^H^Hvasion? ;p

Then there's how much of an interference do we need to have a case of general violation of independence (itself going towards "invasion"). Say, how much of it such drilling / mining practices represent? (together with international economic policies / dumping the price of oil; openly (and most likely rightfully) described by your neighbor - who spilled a lot of blood for you recently - as harmful to them... but without much urgency to you)
Always fuzzy...

Missiles for oil?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder how much oil we get in return for those $500K tomahawk missiles? One can't help but wonder why anybody cares about Libya when nobody gave a damn about any of the other civil wars in Africa, or Russia for that matter. Guess they didn't have oil wells at risk.

Re:Missiles for oil?

[gtall]

Letting the Q-Man succeed would have been the best thing the West could have done to ensure continued supplies of Libyan oil. They did the one thing that would jeopardize that flow.

Re:Missiles for oil?

[ELCouz]

yep... put that ROI down the drain... (/sarcasm) innocent people are dying... and you are talking about a bad move for oil.... just another typical money blinded capitalist!

Re:Missiles for oil?

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't help but believe that the rebel hordes started threatening the oil wells, and the west spasmed at the thought of that (albeit tiny) teat drying up. It's not like any of the western nations involved give a damn about the people of Libya any more than they care about the people of North Korea, Chechnya, Somalia, or any other place where there is oppression or civil war.

Re:Missiles for oil?

[mikael_j]

The rebels actually were holding most of the oil fields a few days ago (I'm not sure of the current situation), the biggest worry I heard of from various "experts" was that Ghaddafi would decide to emulate the Iraqis at the end of Desert Storm by attacking the fields from the air...

Also, if all that mattered was the oil then it would've been easier to just let Ghaddafi wipe out the rebels and buy oil from him.

Re:Missiles for oil?

[doomy]

That's about 5-7 years of NPR funding right there.

Re:Missiles for oil?

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that you have to imagine the rebels made it clear that they were not going to be wiped out without retaliating against the oil wells. It will be fascinating to watch and see what happens if the oil wells go up in flames anyway. I bet we will see the western forces declare victory and walk away.

Re:Missiles for oil?

[justinlee37]

What in the world made you think that gtall disagrees with assisting the rebels? Nothing in his post indicated that.

If anything I think he was trying to suggest that the U.S. decision to intervene wasn't motivated by a desire for oil.

Re:Missiles for oil?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder how much oil we get in return for those $500K tomahawk missiles?

Believe it or not those things have a shelf life. Might as well use it on Qaddafi rather then decommission it and scrap the parts if the "expiration date" is not far off.

Re:Missiles for oil?

[nido]

They did the one thing that would jeopardize that flow.

Coincidentally, jeopardizing the flow of oil also causes the price to go up. "Q-Man's" income takes a hit, BP takes a hit on its Libyan investments, but makes it up with the overall price increase?

Just speculating.

Re:Missiles for oil?

[couchslug]

No point in fights where one gains nothing.

The current idea that the only acceptable non-existential wars must be Moral Jihads to be acceptable makes for some interesting diplomatic acrobatics, and has the effect of making them into mini-Crusades.

Utilitarian war makes sense. Jihad, not so much.

Re:Missiles for oil?

[fluffy99]

The interesting thing to note is that the US ans UK were ready to immediate launch those cruise missles. Apparently we already had full intelligence and a list of targets just waiting. I suspect we have a list of target for most countries and it's just a matter of giving the word for the subs/ship to get in position and fire away.

how times have changed

[Anonymous Coward]

Back in the 80s, France wouldn't let the US use their airspace when bombing Libya. Now, France pushed for military intervention while Baraq Obama spent a month filling out his NCAA brackets.

Re:how times have changed

[Anonymous Coward]

Sarkozy came and conquered the lands of oil and dates. He needs dates as those have been less frequent in the life of Nicholas after taking the office of the president. The office was not as much impressed as Carla was, although Carla, as a former design student, could appreciate the office.

The US shouldn't be there

[cpu6502]

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

Re:The US shouldn't be there

[WilliamTheBat]

The Arab League and the UN have spoken. Strangely enough, the French acted first in support of both those organizations. Us and the Brits joined them. Also, if we clear the path for the Lybian rebels, who then march into Tripoli, then we're "helping" instead of "dictating".

Re:The US shouldn't be there

[aBaldrich]

It was going to be France, UK and Italy, but for some reason the US did not want to miss the party.

Re:The US shouldn't be there

[Anonymous Coward]

We are still a NATO country (oddly enough), and this is a NATO operation. Britian and France are largely contributing planes. Others are contributing ground intel forces. We're just shelling their defenses from the sea, and helping to enforce the arms embargo. Of all the groups there, we're actually in the least danger, and the least likely to take casualties.

Re:The US shouldn't be there

[gmuslera]

Are you sure?

Re:The US shouldn't be there

[ColdWetDog]

It was going to be France, UK and Italy, but for some reason the US did not want to miss the party.

Remember it was US general Norman Schwarzkopf who said "Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your accordion."

Re:The US shouldn't be there

[Anonymous Coward]

We are effectively playing the role of the French in the American Revolutionary War - keeping the powerful weaponry at bay so that they can liberate themselves. In the Revolutionary War, the French helped keep the British Navy at bay, something we could not do for ourselves. Similarly here we are keeping the planes/armor that the Libyans can't deal with themselves at bay.

Re:The US shouldn't be there

[Anonymous Coward]

It may be because there are about 40 years of bad blood there? During the 70s and 80s the Libyan gov targeted American civilians to kill with bombs and succeeded in many cases. It wasnt until Regan had had enough and started bombing. The rest of the world condemned us for doing it. Now all of a sudden they are interested it fixing it. It took many more years of him killing people for anyone to care.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Libya

When Regan said 'we do not negotiate with terrorists' THIS is the country he was talking about.

If you think nothing should be done then look at this list and consider he is not going to stop. We *FORCED* him to stop. He realizes we will chase his ass down and kill him. We have been spoiling for an excuse to finish the job.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Libya#See_also

If you think you can negotiate with terrorists think again. They will want more than you are willing to give up. Or perhaps you are willing to give it up? They are hoping we will be passive. 'They counted wrong'

Re:The US shouldn't be there

[R3d M3rcury]

It was going to be France, UK and Italy [...]

But what about Poland? Did they forget Poland?

Re:The US shouldn't be there

[louic]

It is easy to say that the US should not interfere with other countries, but: "with great power comes great responsibility".

Like it or not: the US are the world police. They have a big army and lots of fancy military equipment, and most of the time I believe they are really trying to do what is best for everybody, and prevent bloodshed etc. etc. With an army as big as theirs, they have a moral obligation to intervene when people are being killed for no apparent reason (or for "bad" reasons, whatever that means). It is however not so easy to decide when to intervene, because it is often not clear what exactly "good" and "bad" reasons are: wars and international politics are not as straightforward as movies (I wish they were. It would either make the movies more interesting or the politics easier to understand).

And yes, they will sometimes decide to intervene when it should not have been done. That is always easy to say afterwards. How many times have you made wrong decisions in your personal life (or in your MMORPG if you prefer)? Often enough, I bet. The consequences may be smaller in case of personal decisions, but should that be a reason for a country to sit back and do nothing? No.

Re:The US shouldn't be there

[aBaldrich]

I dont get it

Re:The US shouldn't be there

[aBaldrich]

Yes I do think the US has no business in Libya. Your problem was 40 years ago, I'm sorry but "40 years ago" is closer to the domain of History than of Politics. They bombed Americans, America retaliated, and the thing was settled. If you believe America needs to be the One and Only Savior of the world, then let me disagree. Libya is on other countries' sphere of influence: Italy, and France. I think it was a bad idea for America to join the operation for many reasons, primarily for it's worsening reputation.
This is the first time that a Peace Noble Prize Laureate leads a country into a military offensive. It's not good for Obama.

Re:The US shouldn't be there

[Shikaku]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mahTGNIk4q4

Re:The US shouldn't be there

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

Remember it was US general Norman Schwarzkopf who said "Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your accordion."

Uhhh, no it wasn't, those words were spoken by Jed Babbin, a former deputy undersecretary of defense in the first Bush administration

I guess it fits better into your chauvinistic view of the world for it to come from an actual general, than one of the chickenhawks.

Re:The US shouldn't be there

[TheRaven64]

The only war that the US has ever won where you didn't have France on your side was the Civil War - and you lost that one too.

Re:The US shouldn't be there

[dbIII]

fingers will be pointed at the US as a "world tyrant"

You mean like they have been since the 1960s? I don't think this will make much difference. Anybody that it will upset already is.
IMHO it will actually improve opinions.

Re:The US shouldn't be there

[MisterCIA]

Ahhh, trolls. Sometimes they're just so stupid it's cute.

Re:The US shouldn't be there

[dbIII]

It wasnt until Regan had had enough and started bombing. The rest of the world condemned us for doing it

In that case the guys that paid for the terrorist bombing of the Pan Am plane were in Iran, the explosives where Czech, bomb parts were supplied by a guy in West Germany and the guy that planted the bomb was from Libya. The knee jerk "somebody has to pay" was what got people upset, especially since he was caught out doing dodgy deals with Iran that called for the bombing in the first place.

When Regan said 'we do not negotiate with terrorists'

Instead he paid them with cold hard cash (Iranian hostage situation) or in the case of Hezbolla sold them weapons (Iran-Contra via Iranian contacts but it was known the "end users" were Hezbolla). People forget that he was an actor using whatever lines would be most effective and instead for some reason think he was telling the truth when he was saying such dramatic things. Instead he was involved in selling weapons to those that actually called for the Pan Am bombing and selling weapons to those that killed so many US marines in Lebanon.
It really amazes me that Americans revere to the point of sainthood the two Presidents (Kennedy and Reagan) who actively came closest to triggering wars that would have been utter catastrophes for the USA. Poking a dying, angry USSR with a stick in hindsight was a vastly stupid thing to do and if Thatcher hadn't pulled him back there would have been war.

Re:The US shouldn't be there

[Anonymous Coward]

France was going to fire their sheet yesterday, but they were le tired.

Re:The US shouldn't be there

[Anonymous Coward]

It is the oil stupid!

Re:The US shouldn't be there

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems to me that you've forgotten that Bush restored full diplomatic relations with Gaddafi and his administration called Libya "a model to follow" (for other states with previous terrorist ties). So this time it's not a lie when the West bombs a state due to its ruthless ruler killing his own people.

Re:The US shouldn't be there

[Anonymous Coward]

Well at least Canada isn't in this one! Whew! Missed this one.

Re:The US shouldn't be there

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is: no one told US to be the world police (It's been a long time since Europe needed help from US in WWII, and WWII wasn't global. Cold War ended, too.), and they don't even respect of opinion of others.

Also, this shows that yes, there are reasons for a country to sit back and do nothing: maintain and gain more power and influence.

Re:The US shouldn't be there

[CrimsonAvenger]

This is the first time that a Peace Noble Prize Laureate leads a country into a military offensive. It's not good for Obama.

I don't know of anyone who takes Obama seriously as a Nobel Peace Prize winner (it's not like he actually did anything to deserve it), so I doubt that this will have much downside for Obama.

Re:The US shouldn't be there

[quax]

"40 years ago" It was the same man running that coiuntry i.e. Muammar Gaddafi.

Re:The US shouldn't be there

[quax]

Well at least Canada isn't in this one! Whew! Missed this one.

And you would be wrong.

Re:The US shouldn't be there

[Anonymous Coward]

Libya was a haven for various sorts of "freedom fighters" at one time (and still is somewhat).

US pokes it's nose there, and guess what will happen?

It will just cement in their minds that US is trying to control everything and it will probably bring about retaliations later. Sort of a vicious circle I think.

Re:The US shouldn't be there

[Anonymous Coward]

The US pretty much has the title of "world tyrant" already. Succession of pinhead presidents has done nothing to styme its reputation... just to ff it up more. Kill your own people please?

Re:The US shouldn't be there

[Zontar The Mindless]

Got up on the wrong side of the Mason-Dixon line this morning, did we?

Re:The US shouldn't be there

[Anonymous Coward]

"and most of the time I believe they are really trying to do what is best for everybody, and prevent bloodshed etc. etc. "
Really?

Please tell me you are joking with this and that you don't believe what you see on Fox news?

The US uses its military to supports its economic interests in the world, mostly in the form of securing US control of energy sources. Client states who buy lots of US military hardware and export oil to the US are supported, client states who make useful forward airbases are supported with huge funding to buy US military hardware, irrespective of whether they are democracies or evil dictators, other states who have the temerity to not ask "how high?" when the US says "jump" end up getting their democracy delivered by General Electric and Lockheed Martin.

Let's take the forcible delivery of democracy to Iraq as an example. We know that the single individual who was the intelligence source for the "evidence" presented to the UN about WMD in Iraq was discredited by other intelligence agencies well before the excuse to invade Iraq. Other intelligence agencies had determined he had no credible history of access to that sort of information and was lying in order to support his claim for asylum. The CIA declined to interview the source themselves in order to maintain plausible deniability when the fabrication inevitably began to unravel.

As for sitting back and doing nothing, nope, we can't accuse the countries who trained Bin Laden to fight the Russians in Afghanistan or sold weapons to Libya of doing nothing, that'll be the US, the UK and France. Note that the UK "special relationship" consists of Uncle Sam providing some KY jelly before buggering the UK.

Re:The US shouldn't be there

[Anonymous Coward]

That makes sense. Five percent of the world's population should send warm bodies to die for and funds to pay for the safety of the other ninety-five percent because of a "moral obligation" you just dreamed.

Re:The US shouldn't be there

[Anonymous Coward]

Right...and where was the 'World Police" when Israel were bombing the civilians of Gaza? Kepala butoh!

Re:The US shouldn't be there

[haruchai]

Modern Americans, especially those who back the Republicans should probably be reminded of the debt owed to France. They seem to be a bit quick to mock the French as cowardly - Americans may want to try living under hostile occupation in the midst of a war before they start jeering those who have ( well, as least their parents and grandparents )

Re:The US shouldn't be there

[haruchai]

Unfortunately, like many police departments, they abuse their powers far too often.

Re:The US shouldn't be there

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems somewhat strange to bring up a MMORPG. I can not think of an instance where someone could make a permanent choice after character setup that could not be changed easily. FFXIV tried with the quest companion, but people whined that they didn't like their current on or the TWO acceptance dialog options to accept were not enough because apparently they just click randomly on the screen. I suppose Talent choices were not changeable in WoW for a considerable amount of time... can change race/name/appearance/etc now for a fee.

Either way, unless there is an example that I can not think of, it just seems off base to bring up games.

Re:The US shouldn't be there

[Draek]

Like it or not they're not the world police, the UN is, and when the US acts on its own thinking it's their responsability to make the world a friendlier place to their interests the world reacts much as they would with a rogue cop killing alleged criminals on his spare time.

Somalia was a mistake but Iraq is an attrocity, the US' current reputation is well deserved.

Re:The US shouldn't be there

[Anonymous Coward]

WTB: Declaration of war when we go to... wait for it... war.

Re:The US shouldn't be there

[hannson]

the US are the world police.

But they shouldn't because they're hypocrites that can't even follow their own rules and the standards they assume from other countries. However in this case I say go for it but try to keep the civilian casualties and tortures at minimum this time.

Re:The US shouldn't be there

[Anonymous Coward]

With everybody getting smarter, it's hard to find a post that completely contradicts what you believe.

Re:The US shouldn't be there

[Anonymous Coward]

...and most of the time I believe they are really trying to do what is best for everybody...

Nobody acts like that. Ever.

Re:The US shouldn't be there

[psyph3r]

It's not a question of morality at this point. However, questions of sovereignty and committing acts of war without congressional approval arise. At this point, it's a question of economics. Can we afford to do this? NO...period...end of story. We're flying on credit. Personally, having my military flying around the world on the whims of a world political body without any checks and balances is more than disconcerting. My country's national sovereignty and solvency is way more important than an internal dispute in a sovereign nation that poses no threat to my country. You can go hire a private military with your own money to dictate how others live their lives. Stay away from mine. Insightful? idealistic. Reality must factor in at some point.

Re:The US shouldn't be there

[Anonymous Coward]

Like it or not: the US are the world police.

The only people who actually think this are Americans - the rest of the world wishes they would can the bullshit.

Re:The US shouldn't be there

[Anonymous Coward]

Libya will be destroyed - its schools, education system, water, infrastructure, hospitals, municipal buildings. There will be numerous "tragic mistakes", "collateral damage", mothers, fathers, children, babies, grandparents, blind and deaf schools and on and on.

The infrastructure will be destroyed. The embargo will remain in place, thus rebuilding will be impossible. Britain, France and the US., will decide the country needs "stabilising", "help with reconstruction." They will move in, secure the oil installations and oil fields, the Libyan people will be an incidental inconvenience and quickly become "the enemy", "insurgents", be shot, imprisoned, tortured, abused - and a US friendly puppet "government" will be installed.

The invaders will award their companies rebuilding contracts, the money - likely taken from Libya's frozen assets without accounting - will vanish and the country will remain largely in ruins.

And yes, most of the time I believe they are really trying to do what is best for everybody

Re:The US shouldn't be there

[cpu6502]

>>>they have a moral obligation to intervene when people are being killed for no apparent reason

Number of people dead in Iraq and Afghanistan, because the US had a "moral obligation" to act:
Around 200,000

Number of people dead if the US Army had done nothing:
~3000 (the people that died on 9/11)

The moral obligation is to do that which leads to the least amount of death. In most cases the answer is to do nothing, rather than to kill.

Re:The US shouldn't be there

[Anonymous Coward]

There is oil involved. The white knight needs oil.

Nobody hates the U.S. because they intervene. The antipathy against U.S. foreign affairs is mostly out of the fact, that they only do it selectively, hiding circumstances behind big media.

This is not my personal point, I just wanted to clarify.
Many intellectual people around the world see some of the recent wars as pushed, e.g. the devilizing of Hussein to a point where you thought he was a terrorist nuke monger.

I personally want Libya to be free from tyranny. And it's the people who started this war. They HOPE for help. It is right to intervene this time.
Skipping this time would be bad.

Re:The US shouldn't be there

[Anonymous Coward]

What turnip truck did you fall off of!

Re:The US shouldn't be there

[Zandamesh]

I don't think the US has a bad reputation because they're at war in Iraq/Afghanistan, that's mainly to blame on the stupid politicians. I mean, it didn't take a genius to see that Bush and Cheney were not the smartest of the bunch, and now there are all these republicans making obviously stupid statements, and there's Fox News and Rush Limbaugh, teabaggers, and probably a lot more. Now these people don't speak for the US but they do shout the loudest, and it's hard to ignore so much balant stupidity, especially from the republicans, they're supposed to take care of their country and they're fucking around. Not to say that the Democrats can't act childish but the republicans, in general, are pretty retarded right now. I think more professionalism should be expected from politicians.

Re:The US shouldn't be there

[Anonymous Coward]

LEEEEEROY JENNNKINS!

Caps filter makes me write this.

Re:The US shouldn't be there

[AP31R0N]

i'll tell the girl at the campus bookstore how indie you are.

Re:The US shouldn't be there

[quenda]

Depends if Obama can keep his word about no ground troops. The first war with Iraq was a success because Bush-I resisted a full invasion. It destroyed Iraq as a regional military power.
The bombing of Afghanistan in support of the Northern alliance was a successful act of revenge that even the Arabs respected.
It only all turned to shit when the US tried to occupy and install their idea of democracy. Can the US accept the prospect of a divided Libya, with Gaddafi still ruling part, as Saddam did in Iraq for many years?

Re:The US shouldn't be there

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, Europe and the international community handled Bosnia like a champ.

Re:The US shouldn't be there

[troll -1]

The US has a habit of propping up dictators of the likes we've seen in Central and South America. From Pinochet to The Shah it's not apparent you can easily know in foresight what's gonna be good for the people in hindsight. The Founding Fathers made it a law that only Congress can declare war. Enforcing a no fly zone is an act of war and the reason at least one person in the House is considering a resolution to find the President in violation of the War Powers Resolution of 1973 which underscores the Constitution by prohibiting the president from going to war without the authorization of congress unless the US is attacked first. Libya has not attacked the US.

Re:The US shouldn't be there

[sydneyfong]

they have a moral obligation to intervene

The White Man's burden?

should that be a reason for a country to sit back and do nothing?

Yes. Particularly when your country has shown time and again that it messes things up for the worse.

Re:The US shouldn't be there

[Anonymous Coward]

>"with great power comes great responsibility"

So who is taking responsibility for the holes in the US border? It goes directly against the Constitution of the United States to engage in this kind of thing against other countries with out congress declaring war (and that last happened during WWII). As for having a "Big" army with "lots of fancy military equipment", yes we do. But just because I own a .454 Cassul hand gun does not mean that I can go shoot somebody that is yelling at a child because I don't feel that that is "moral". If a situation is serious enough that it needs intervention, at least do things properly and have congress declare war.

Re:The US shouldn't be there

[Anonymous Coward]

Then why you bomb the hospitals and civilian targets ?
I bet you have a smart, righteous explanation for that one too.
Like killing people to give them freedom.

Re:The US shouldn't be there

[Anonymous Coward]

Internal affairs of every country should be that INTERNAL, no country should ever invade another while their actions have not harmed other nations and specially not using the international mechanisms created for protection. As far as i've seen both the Lybian government and their opposition have big guns and both are messing things up, it's a civil war, not the government shooting everyone they see on the streets.

Yes they have a big army and a lot of cool and fancy war toys, but they don't have an "obligation" and people in this case are not killed for no apparent reasons, in this case it started with protests, then "rebels" (as they call them) took munitions storages and got big guns to fight the army, this fact raises the bar from simple protests to civil war.

They always decide to intervene, that's the thing, each country they "help" becomes a colony, curiously enough lately all of these countries have either oil or are strategical points to attack other nations. They're not the "world police" they're the world mob.

Yes we've all made the wrong decisions before but when these decisions and errors affect millions of people, they have to be through thoroughly and there's no excuse for the "errors" (fuck ups) made, and yes they should try to just sit back, relax and let everyone manage their own stuff, after all would you like to have a police officer telling you how you'll take a dump and how you'll wipe later?

BTW i'm not with Gaddafi, i just think that they shouldn't be invaded as their conflict is internal.

I live in Venezuela and the current administration has made a lot of fuck ups, major fuck ups, but the opposition here aren't saints as the US media and government portrays them (in their administrations we've had people thrown out of helicopters and planes, bombing civilians yes with planes, shooting kids asking for better education, people just dissapearing and misteriously dying) and the situation here it's very complex and tense, and may end up in a civil war, and i sure as hell don't want any other country telling us how will we solve this and who will be the next president, that's something the people of a country should and can do on their own.

Have a nice day.
Werbert D.

Re:The US shouldn't be there

[Anonymous Coward]

Gadhafi's son promised to release documents about Libya donating money to Nicolas Sarkozy election campaign. Several days after that the attack began.

Re:The US shouldn't be there

[Anonymous Coward]

Dramatic comic book cliches hardly justify American hegemony.

Like it or not the US are the sword of the multinational industrialists and bankers. War is profitable to these entities and so the US will expend expensive munitions in the pursuit of war all the while claiming just cause.

The targets of this initiative aren't those that threaten the people of Libya but those that threaten American airpower superiority.

Use your brain.

Re:The US shouldn't be there

[Stiletto]

It is easy to say that the US should not interfere with other countries, but: "with great power comes great responsibility".

Would you say the same thing if North Korea had the world's largest army? Might is very rarely right.

Re:The US shouldn't be there

[louic]

What part of "responsibility" is it that you do not understand? I never said that might == right. Might is fine if used responsibly: to do right.

Re:The US shouldn't be there

[Anonymous Coward]

those who are late to the party dont get the spoils of war in commercial contracts afterwards. Oh wait this is the US we are talking about.

Re:The US shouldn't be there

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems like they extract a certain mineral there...can't remember what, but maybe its something the US wants to be "in" on when those extraction contracts are up for re-negotiation with the new regime.

Re:The US shouldn't be there

[SoftGLOW]

In the school playground, a really annoying kid keeps bad mouthing the other kids, teasing the girls and hitting kindergarten children. All the other kids complain and two boys step up and decide to go and sort out the annoying kid. So, during the next break, they head off the brat and set about putting him straight. All of a sudden the school bully - spotting an easy win - rides up on his BMX (really!) barges in and beats the living crap out of the annoying kid, leaving a sobbing bloody mess. The other kids look around, dazed, confused and asking each other "what the hell was THAT all about?"

It's time to..

[Anonymous Coward]

It's time to kick ass and chew bubble gum.. and we're all our of gum.

Re:It's time to..

[Anonymous Coward]

"Don't have time, to play with myself"

The Response From Libya?

[earthloop]

I can't help feeling that 747s etc. are going to start falling out of the skies on a regular basis as a result of this.

Bombing for peace...

[camcorder]

...is like fucking for virginity!

Re:Bombing for peace...

[GuldKalle]

How else are you gonna make more virgins? :)

Re:Bombing for peace...

[Shihar]

...is like fucking for virginity!

Worth a shot? Better than fucking yourself?

Re:Bombing for peace...

[Nidi62]

Yes, because sitting idly by while Gaddafi uses indiscriminate tank and artillery fire as well as air strikes on cities that contain not only rebels but innocent noncombatants such as women and children, detains foreign journalists, and outright lies to the rest of the world(the rebels are all brainwashed by al-Qaeda, and the Libyan government is abiding by the ceasefire) is a significant contribution to peace. To buy peace, you sometimes have to pay in blood.

Re:Bombing for peace...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hm, do you remember Georgia during the Ossetian conflict? I do believe Saakashvili was, as you put it, "using indiscriminate tank and artillery fire as well as air strikes" against his own people. Tell me: where was US, etc.. intervention then? Why wasn't Saakashvili not condemned? Oh, that's right, because Russia was opposing him, and we can't align with Russia.

There may be legitimate reasons why Qaddafi's rule is bad. The mass hysteria about oppressed civilians in Libya is nothing short of abysmally hypocritical, or, as it is known in the US, "the regular news cycle".

Re:Bombing for peace...

[Anonymous Coward]

To buy peace, you sometimes have to pay in blood.

Then pick up a rifle and go to war. Otherwise, shut the fuck up.

Re:Bombing for peace...

[Pecisk]

There is no way to describe how I love this high-shelves self-rightiousness! You sleep very well at nights, don't you?

Not every situation is alike. Iraq was clearly a mistake. This is entirerly different situation now. I am actually surprised to UN finally act united (even those countries who abstained did it for totally different reasons), only to snatch bloody victory from Gadaffi's hands.

War is bad any time it happens. But sometimes you have to do the fighting to have peace. At least Lybians can't say that they didn't try for that.

Re:Bombing for peace...

[thisnamestoolong]

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.

Re:Bombing for peace...

[ethergear]

This is a very cogent reply.

Re:Bombing for peace...

[the linux geek]

Yeah... gotta love how Russia is always the peacekeeper. Yep, they sure showed those terrorists in Chechnya compassion when they blew holes in the Grozny hospital maternity ward with SS-21's.

Re:Bombing for peace...

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't change the topic - Russia's no picnic. The point here is about UN responses to "atrocities". For my money, if you're gonna condemn one, you should condemn all three. Or STFU. Or be a hypocrite. I argue they've chosen the last of the three.

Re:Bombing for peace...

[the linux geek]

I agree. I just think that the point here is being missed in favor of "OMG SAVE THE LIBYANS" zeitgeist. Dictators exist. Wars, exist, including civil wars, and that's what the Libya situation is at this point.

Re:Bombing for peace...

[FrankieBaby1986]

I think you just won the internet.

Re:Bombing for peace...

[crossmr]

Unfortunately that's a load of shit. That and the whole "violence doesn't solve anything" rhetoric is garbage. There are times when violence is completely appropriate, unless your plan is to lay down and die.

When the enemy won't talk or is unreasonable, the only solution is to fight or die.

Re:Bombing for peace...

[shutdown -p now]

Russia indiscriminately bombed civilians during both First and Second Chechen campaigns.

Georgia indiscriminately bombed civilians during the South Ossetian war.

These things are not contradictory, you know?

Re:Bombing for peace...

[bongey]

Better than fucking yourself?

Well I "thought" that would end after I got married. (ducks from wife).

Re:Bombing for peace...

[arekusu_ou]

Didn't the US use indiscriminate force in Iraq? Didn't Saddam surround himself with civilians and the US bombed them anyways? The West stinks of hypocrisy and that's why they're hated around the world.

Aren't the US troops still killing innocent civilians in Iraq and pay restitution out of tax money?

Re:Bombing for peace...

[Anonymous Coward]

So what? They are doing it Bahrain. The Israeli government routinely does this to the Palestinians. Where is the concern about civilians then? Where is the intervention to protect the innocents?

This is all about empire. This is about expanding interest and influence.

The rebels were triggered after events happened Egypt. The U.S. and its allies are attempting to control the revolution that has spread across the Mideast after Tunisia and Egypt. Egypt caught them unexpectedly but now they are helping to push it in a direction favorable to them. Aren't you wondering why there weren't uprisings in Saudi Arabia, Qatar or the other GCC nations - when many of them brutalize their people?

Time to wakeup.

Re:Bombing for peace...

[hedwards]

I'm not generally a supporter of military intervention to solve problems, however there are cases such as this where it is genuinely the only way. Qaddafi is sufficiently dangerous to himself and the people living in the region such as to justify our throwing our weight behind the pro-democracy forces. The thing we need to be exceedingly careful about is if they do win, we need to stand behind whomever the Libyan people choose in their elections.

It might mean standing behind some questionable characters, but so long as the process is fair and represents the will of the people we're just going to cause problems for ourselves and the rest of the world if we don't stand behind free and fair elections.

The rebels will still have to win their war, but they'll at least have a much more even fight on their hands if they don't have loyalist air power to worry about.

Re:Bombing for peace...

[Anonymous Coward]

In this case, should be the libyan blood. The US has nothing to lose, and this has nothing to do with peace of the US people, unless you buy the "war on terrorism" bullsh!t. If you really want peace based on other people suffering, you have big cultural/social problems.

Oh, btw, how many Iraqi innocent "noncombatants such as women and children" died since the US intervened? at least 100,000.

Lots of hypocrites, ignorant and brainwashed people in the US.

Re:Bombing for peace...

[Anonymous Coward]

How dare Gaddafi kill innocent noncombatants such as women and children, and spread outright lies to the rest of the world.
As the wikileaks about the Iraq war have shown, that job already taken by the US.

Funny how the UN did fuck all about the protesters getting killed in Egypt.
Or how they're doing fuck all about the protesters getting killed in Bahrain.

If this is about removing a ruthless leader for the sake of its citizens, then where's the UN action against Mugabe? Oh yeah, that's right, trade sanctions, that'll show 'em.

Re:Bombing for peace...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll buy that line of thinking if (and only if) they also take action against Bahrain, Iran and Yemen.

Re:Bombing for peace...

[Anonymous Coward]

cool, so Saudi Arabia is next?

Re:Bombing for peace...

[Anonymous Coward]

Fixed it for you...

Yes, because sitting idly by while America uses indiscriminate tank and artillery fire as well as air strikes on cities that contain not only Al-Qaeda but innocent noncombatants such as women and children, detains foreign journalists, and outright lies to the rest of the world(the Al-Qaeda are all brainwashed by Islam, and the American government is abiding by the Geneva Convention) is a significant contribution to peace. To buy peace, you sometimes have to pay in blood.

Re:Bombing for peace...

[Anonymous Coward]

Forced our hand to steal Libya's oil?

Re:Bombing for peace...

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet you never thought you'd end up agreeing with the invasion of Iraq. And yet here you are.

You're right of course. We should invade, kill the dictator, and install democracy. Ten years later the country will be a liberal paradise and nobody will ever, ever say that the invasion was a bad idea. JUST LIKE IRAQ.

Re:Bombing for peace...

[Anonymous Coward]

The "peace" that the parent spoke of is the peace in his own little isolated cocoon. There are no bad guys, evil tyrants, or any of that for him to worry about. That quote reflects the ignorance of people that believe the rest of the world is just like their hometown. I've been there, it isn't.

Re:Bombing for peace...

[Anonymous Coward]

How about you? Will you be a donor and risk some of your blood (literally)?

It's easy to suggest that others assume risk to themselves. It's not so easy to take action yourself.

Before you ask the same question of me, the answer is "yes." I am a Soldier and I am in Afghanistan for the second time (1 year each time).

Re:Bombing for peace...

[haruchai]

The original quote was "Fighting for peace is like fucking for chastity" - it used to be one of my Slashdot .sigs.

Re:Bombing for peace...

[Anonymous Coward]

First, your implication that women and children are always noncombatants is preposterous.

Second, if you want to be gung-ho about paying in blood, you can be the first to pick up a gun and join the rebel cause, whatever it may be. The fact is we know nothing about the rebels and have no strategic objective of our(the USA) own, as Germany and India pointed out during the Security Council meeting:
"What is our plan if we create a no-fly zone and it doesn't work? Do we send in ground troops?" she(Angela Merkel) said. "We have to think this through. Why should we intervene in Libya when we don't intervene elsewhere?". If France and the UK want Gaddafi out, fine. I'd even say the previous terrorism activities possibly warrant it. Doing it under the guise of 'protecting civilians' while unambiguous genocide occurs elsewhere is disingenuous, and supporting a side because they're the enemy of my enemy is outright stupid.

Re:Bombing for peace...

[Anonymous Coward]

That is the point of democracy and why the Libyans want it. They can have their own bloodless revolution every few years during elections. Thankfully the Egyptians won that way but the Libyans did not have such a sympathetic military.

Hopefully, they will get democracy like the US eventually did the blood way.

Re:Bombing for peace...

[Anonymous Coward]

But it is ok when the americans do it?

Re:Bombing for peace...

[Draek]

Just because one option results in war and meaningless bloodshed doesn't mean the other won't; not all situations have an alternative that'd result in peace, just look at the rest of the Middle East for examples.

Re:Bombing for peace...

[Anonymous Coward]

"The Tree of Liberty must be watered from Time to Time with the Blood of Patriots and Tyrants" -- Thomas Jefferson

Re:Bombing for peace...

[Anonymous Coward]

Dresda bombing in world war II was a completely different matter then?

Re:Bombing for peace...

[Anonymous Coward]

So you wouldn't have been surprised if the international community had stood up and prevented us from killing thousands of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan - had foreign journalists detained or threatened with death (Assange for example) and outright lied to the rest of the world (weapons of mass destruction to mention only one count)?

Do we even have any idea what these rebels really want? Or how far they are willing to go to get it (i.e. killing civilians too?)? Where is the line between rebel and insurgent - and I'm not talking the philosophical/metaphysical line, I mean the actual logical line where we decide to support one and kill the other?

Re:Bombing for peace...

[houghi]

"innocent noncombatants"? Aren't those the ones in Gitmo?

Re:Bombing for peace...

[Anonymous Coward]

There are no more virgins!!

Re:Bombing for peace...

[lennier]

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.

Well, for a start, we could eg stop selling him the bullets he's using to do it?

Just a thought, and I'm going out on a limb here, but I'm assuming Gaddafi isn't fashioning jet aircraft and guided missiles out of nothing except sand, lies, hate, the blood of his enemies, and a primitive kind of earwig which enters through the ear canal and eats the brain. He's been selling oil for years, and in return there must have been deals stretching back an equally long number of years to supply him with Stuff, and those deals would have been fairly open and above board and documented and approved by all the UN security council members right up until yesterday, when he suddenly became Hitler Mark III.

But it's easier to just bomb him, right? And especially in international diplomacy and war, the easy option is always the most ethical.

Re:Bombing for peace...

[Eil]

You've been waiting like 10 years to use that, haven't you?

Re:Bombing for peace...

[Eil]

Unspeakable atrocities occur every day on the African continent. Entire villages wiped out, people tortured, shot, and raped. The stories fill the BBC airwaves, but the western world doesn't lift a finger to help because we don't meddle in a sovereign nation's own civil war.

When revolution struck Egypt and Mubarak refused to step down, U.S. leaders refused even to discuss the situation and signalled that they had no intention of getting involved no matter which way the struggle went. As soon as the same thing happened in Libya, prior to any violence, the U.S. president declared that "all options are on the table." I guess it makes a difference when it's an oil-exporting sovereign nation's civil war.

Don't get me wrong, I abhor violence and don't want to see anyone suffer. But the hypocrisy here is staggering.

Re:Bombing for peace...

[Anonymous Coward]

You're all talk and no action. Many of us do not beleive in arbitrary foreign intervention in a sovereign nation's civil war.

You're also highly selective: innocents are killed by tyrants in many dark corners of the globe - possibly even in your own country. So why now? Why this conflict?

Stop sending other's children and spending other's money on your projections of reality. Gandi says, "Be the change you want to see in the world." Pick up a rifle or shut up.

NO BLOOD FOR OIL!!!

[Vinegar Joe]

DAMN YOU GEORGE BUSH!!!

Wait a sec........

Obama's the president now........

Never mind.

Re:NO BLOOD FOR OIL!!!

[metlin]

Yes, except that this was a UN resolution.

Wonder what the UN thought about us going into Iraq... oh wait.

Re:NO BLOOD FOR OIL!!!

[Radtoo]

The difference actually is that Obama isn't after the oil in Libya...

Re:NO BLOOD FOR OIL!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

The UN learned their lesson.

This time, the resolution explicitly allowed any means necessary short of foreign invasion.

Re:NO BLOOD FOR OIL!!!

[Solandri]

The "No blood for oil" mantra came from opposition to the first Gulf War (when Iraq invaded Kuwait), which had a UN resolution authorizing it.

Re:NO BLOOD FOR OIL!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1441

Re:NO BLOOD FOR OIL!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

It was a UN resolution championed by France and somewhat reluctantly by the US. Nobody in their right mind can blame the coalition forces for this war, even less blame the US.

This is coming from a European center-left anti-war guy who thinks G.W. Bush is probably a war criminal by any fair standard and that the US under Clinton and Bush was a loose cannon that killed tens of thousands civilians in situations where less violent options should have been considered.

I'm against the war, but the war is clearly a war of aggression by Gaddafi against the people of Libya. The rebels are fighting a war of self defense after Gaddaffi began to use his military to stop their revolution, which I support since it was a revolution that the people supported. The UN coalition seems to be pursuing the least terrible course of action which is to disable Gaddafi's heavy weaponry and make sure that he can't continue to kill his people. I think a lot of Gaddafi's men will turn on him when they sense that he is losing the upper hand.

Re:NO BLOOD FOR OIL!!!

[arekusu_ou]

Hahahahaha

*wipes a tear from his eyes from laughter*

Next you'll tell me Obama fulfilled his promises from 2008 and pulled out of Iraq in a year.

Re:NO BLOOD FOR OIL!!!

[Radtoo]

So, according to you, the plan is:

1. Obama does not withdraw from Iraq as fast as he promised to during his election campaign.

2. ???

3. The US attack Libya with the intent to get its oil - and not like before in trade, but occupation of sorts. Also implied: Libya exports to the US, not to the EU, China, and Turkey anymore as it did before.

4. Profit!

Correct?

Re:NO BLOOD FOR OIL!!!

[arekusu_ou]

I don't know what Obama's plan is, but I don't believe the bullshit about this isn't about oil.

And Obama's broken promise doesn't exactly make me trust him more.

And people on the thread arguing for your side, already said the US is right in this because it does have a vested interest in the oil.

How long before

[dorpus]

A US cruise missile kills a bunch of civilians, so Europeans call it "American aggression" and act like they had no part in it?

Re:How long before

[Anonymous Coward]

Europe (or EU), as a whole, is not participating in this mission led by US forces. Some NATO countries are.

Re:How long before

[ThunderBird89]

With the amount of guidance those missiles have and the intel that goes into targeting them, coupled with them being smarter than the people who push their buttons, I'd say a very long time indeed...

Re:How long before

[Anonymous Coward]

Long time being 3...2...1... given all western missiles are pre-programmed to target schools, hospitals and baby milk factories. It's in their DNA.

Re:How long before

[shutdown -p now]

Did you miss the part where French fighter planes were in the first strike wave? And that Brits are also launching cruise missiles alongside US?

Re:How long before

[ThunderBird89]

Interesting. When did manufacturers start using biological processing units? And are they faster/more efficient than a generic electronic CPU or an FPGA?

Re:How long before

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll start complaining when the I see on TV and read in the newspapers that the people of Libya has stopped cheering for the UN military intervention. These people are armed with nothing but AK-47's and yet they're willing to take on tanks in the streets of their cities.

As your average liberal US-critical European I never thought I'd say this. Keep firing those cruise missiles...

And...

[C0R1D4N]

the rest of the UN nations are doing what exactly to support this? Sure the security council nations have the highest obligation but there's no reason Italy, Netherlands, Greece, South Africa, and a multitude of other nations can't get involved. Every cruise missile we fire is a million damn dollars and we're friggin broke as it is.

Re:And...

[Nidi62]

the rest of the UN nations are doing what exactly to support this? Sure the security council nations have the highest obligation but there's no reason Italy, Netherlands, Greece, South Africa, and a multitude of other nations can't get involved.

Italy is providing naval and air bases as staging points for NATO operations. I think some Canadian and other nation's jets are beginning to be staged out of southern Sicily.

Re:And...

[mikael_j]

Well, Italy is letting the UN forces use their ports and airbases, Denmark and Norway have both sent fighters.

Not to mention that the first planes that went into Libyan airspace were French and British. Oh, and various shared NATO resources, and the french have the Charles de Gaulle parked off the Libyan coast and...

Oh sorry, you wanted to rant about how Amurka(!) is always called upon to play the world police only to be bashed by the world community. Feel free to continue.

Re:And...

[PeterBrett]

the rest of the UN nations are doing what exactly to support this?

• UAE: 24 strike aircraft
• Qatar: 4-6 strike aircraft
• Spain: two airbases; 4 FA-18s; air refuelling and surveillance assets; submarine and frigate
• Cheese-eating surrender monkeys: pretty much their entire navy and air force
• Canada: Lots of air assets (not clear what yet)
• Italy: several bases including 3 in Sicily

That's just what I could quickly dredge up from BBC News

Re:And...

[C0R1D4N]

Perhaps then the problem is that we never hear about this in the news stories.

Re:And...

[PeterBrett]

Perhaps then the problem is that we never hear about this in the news stories.

In the UK, at least, the government have been very careful to highlight the broad international consensus for and involvement in the action against Gaddafi, and the media here also seem to have been emphasising the cooperation from other countries.

However, it's only natural that people want to hear how their country is helping out, so there have also been quite a lot of interest stories on the news here about the particular British units that are involved.

Re:And...

[rahvin112]

The Charles de Gualle Aircraft carrier has yet to leave port. It's expected to depart later this week. The French do have a few cruisers and other assets in the area but no aircraft carrier. French planes are using ground based launch platforms.

Unlike the US the French do no have their single aircraft carrier deployed except in times of conflict. At all other times it remains in port.

Re:And...

[mikael_j]

The Charles de Gualle Aircraft carrier has yet to leave port. It's expected to depart later this week. The French do have a few cruisers and other assets in the area but no aircraft carrier. French planes are using ground based launch platforms.

Huh, I've read on at least a couple of news websites that the Charles de Gaulle arrived either today or yesterday. Well, I suppose low accuracy is hardly surprising when it comes to the news media...

Re:And...

[justinlee37]

Why does everybody talk shit about the French? Their military history is ancient, they were the British empire's primary enemy, and without them America would probably have been crushed during the revolution.

Re:And...

[EdIII]

As an "Amurkin" all I can say is... the French have a navy?!

Re:And...

[Anonymous Coward]

French Navy

Current French Navy Ships

There's also: French Air Force - Aircraft Inventory

Re:And...

[PeterBrett]

Why does everybody talk shit about the French? Their military history is ancient, they were the British empire's primary enemy, and without them America would probably have been crushed during the revolution.

Sorry, Slashdot's HTML parser doesn't allow the <joke> tag.

I'm genuinely pleased to see so many European nations working together on this, including the French. I am a little concerned about Sarkozy's grandstanding, but truth be told, the UN resolution couldn't have been obtained without the French, and as far as I can tell, France (not the UK or USA) is the linchpin of the military coalition that's being assembled.

Re:And...

[Anonymous Coward]

Where do you think the money for those cruise missiles goes?

Re:And...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Canada: Lots of air assets (not clear what yet)"

6 F-18s and support teams.

Re:And...

[Anonymous Coward]

Norway: 6 * F16, 2 * AWACS
Denmark: 6 * F16

Re:And...

[bazorg]

Canada: Lots of air assets (not clear what yet)

I believe they are farting in that general direction.

Re:And...

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe Canada is sending at least 6 aircraft

Re:And...

[bongey]

Cheese-eating surrender monkeys: pretty much their entire navy and air force

A drunk guy in a dingy and another guy throwing paper airplanes ?

Re:And...

[ZigMonty]

Anyone with half a clue knows the french military has been potent for centuries. There's a reason they're a permanent member of the security council. Them getting rolled in WWII was embarrassing but then, then it took the combined might of how many countries to finally bring the germans down? Lets not pretend they were defeated by a bunch of amateurs with slingshots. America was pretty seriously unprepared for WWII when it broke out and took a couple of years of building up the army to be able to credibly challenge germany. It's easier to mock other countries for being conquered when you've got enough natural defense (read:ocean and size) to make invasion impractical.

That said, the jokes are hilarious. Which is why they exist. :P

Re:And...

[Anonymous Coward]

As I understand it they did badly during world war 2, and everyone remembers only the last big war.

That and american women love france, so there's a lot of jealousy against them...

Re:And...

[Anonymous Coward]

It was a joke, Mr Sensitive and almost certainly not French. Criticism of "lack of action" by the Euros was being answered by praising the French in an ironic way. Maybe you come from a country that is famous for not understanding irony ...

Re:And...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why does everybody talk shit about the French?

The French are our allies and our friends.
That said, they can be annoying and frustrating at times.
So we mock them now and then to ruffle their feathers.

Re:And...

[painandgreed]

Why does everybody talk shit about the French? Their military history is ancient, they were the British empire's primary enemy, and without them America would probably have been crushed during the revolution.

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.

Re:And...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's google's fault.

Re:And...

[dbIII]

Why does everybody talk shit about the French?

There's a lot of posters from the USA here that like to pretend they got their country on their own without French help and instead have a myth about some civilians with rusty muskets freezing in the woods and then winning a country on their own. The French (and the trained military on the US side) are the flies in the ointment of that myth so people that hold it HATE to be reminded of it and have ended up hating the French.
Also the French response to US demands on any issue (eg. don't grow hemp) is generally a rude hand gesture. There's also the "we saved your ass in WWII so bow down to us" attitude and the French respond once again with a rude hand gesture. I suppose the last thing is the experience of US tourists in France that generally go to Paris. Apparently people in Paris really hate tourists and make that very clear.

Re:And...

[Anonymous Coward]

Because we Americans are generally very ignorant, sad but true.

Re:And...

[bongey]

Well the Canadians just showed to the fight in goalie pads. All of Canada is in rage after Gaddafi was quoted saying " Hockey is for pussies".

Re:And...

[Anonymous Coward]

Canada: Lots of air assets (not clear what yet). This and possibly more interesting,this.

Re:And...

[Anonymous Coward]

Didn't the French lose in Vietnam in the 50's & Algeria in the 60's?

Re:And...

[CrimsonAvenger]

Them getting rolled in WWII was embarrassing but then, then it took the combined might of how many countries to finally bring the germans down?

They were also rolled rather badly in the Franco-Prussian War in the 19th century.

And others.

Note, for reference, that the reason for the French jokes about WW2 is that the French (plus the British Expedionary Force) was defeated by an Army that was smaller than the French Army and that had fewer tanks, trucks, artillery pieces, and aircraft.

Note that during the susequent invasion of the USSR, the Soviets were also pounded by an Army that was smaller, had fewer tanks and aircraft (can't say that the Soviets had more trucks - we had to ship them hundreds of thousands of trucks in the war).

AS to your question, the answer is three. The USSR, the UK, and the USA. The USSR did most of the dying (and arguably most of the killing), and the USA provided most of the material used by all three.

Re:And...

[quax]

You forgot Canada.

Re:And...

[greatpatton]

so they withdrew from NATO and went their own way.

France never withdrew from NATO (only from the unified command structure). To quote wikipedia:

France remained a member of the alliance, and committed to the defence of Europe from possible Communist attack with its own forces stationed in the Federal Republic of Germany throughout the Cold War.

Re:And...

[harley78]

Every million dollar missile has been "paid for already". We need targets so we can make more missiles, which creates more jobs. (by we, I mean USA). I could be wrong though.

Re:And...

[harley78]

To be fair, France isn't that far from Libya. Assuming 20knots/hr it could be there relatively fast.

Re:And...

[painandgreed]

France never withdrew from NATO (only from the unified command structure). To quote wikipedia:

Hey, close enough for the internet as the snipit you posted is from the wikipedia section titled "French Withdrawal" on NATO. Keep in mind I had to condense enough information to fill a book into a single paragraph from memory just so ./ers could read it instead of doing work. There are bound to be some things that need fleshing out or even some misremembered tid bits. For that matter, it is all just my guess. I've never actually seen a historical study on French surrender jokes to see if they began or at least became a more popular meme starting with the 5th Republic.

Re:And...

[Anonymous Coward]

Q. Why does the new French Navy have glass-bottomed boats?
A. To see the old French Navy.

Re:And...

[niteshifter]

No, not ancient. The Vichy Regime is still in living memory, and it takes a few generations for that type of 'aroma' to dissipate.

Re:And...

[Martin Blank]

The de Gaulle regularly embarks on both training, patrol, goodwill, and combat missions, spending a considerable amount of time in the Indian Ocean in recent years, supporting both operations in Afghanistan and antipiracy operations off Somalia. You don't build a ship for a few billion euros (or thr equivalent) and then let it sit in port unused.

Re:And...

[Draek]

Because the Brits are still pissed that they had to rely on luck, the English Channel and the combined armies of four empires to stop Napoleon from conquering the entirety of Europe, and the US is still very much shaped by its motherland whether they like it or not.

And of course, there's also an element of "America Saves The Day!" WW2-related thoughts since making France look weaker makes the US' subsequent "coming to the rescue" look more heroic by comparison.

Re:And...

[PeterBrett]

All of them made in USA......priceless!!

I didn't know that Mirages, Eurofighters and Stormshadow missiles were made in the USA! Oh well, you learn something new every day.

Re:And...

[wsxyz]

Actually people in Paris love tourists.

Re:And...

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you seen what geriatric American tourists act like in France? They think that yelling louder in English equates to a French translation. They don't even make an attempt to say bonjour (a tiny bit of the local language is fun and polite). And pretty much try and treat waiters as if they are slaves. They forget that the waiters in countries like France are actually paid a liveable wage and don't need to be treated like shit just to earn a tip. I've run into younger American students while in Europe though and most where polite and had at least a basic grasp of the local language.

Re:And...

[Anonymous Coward]

Lol! what a wonderful biased view of history. Why people like you ever get modded this high for spewing partial nonsense...

Re:And...

[burisch_research]

... South Africa ...

Do you know how far away South Africa is? Libya is well beyond the range of any of our planes. And we don't have any aircraft carriers. So, if SA were to get involved, it'd mean sending our warplanes on a multi-hop journey to one of the coalition air bases. Considering the logistical nightmare, and the very small resulting incremental improvement to coalition forces, it's really not worthwhile for SA to get involved.

As for the rest of the countries you mentioned, sure that'd be a great idea. (not sure Greece can afford it, though ...)

Re:And...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, France withdrew from NATO because the USA was spying on France from NATO airbases on French soil. Most of the disrespect for France began around this time as a concerted PR effort to undermine their motives.

Does that include building a time machine?

[unassimilatible]

And going back 30 years to prevent the civilian repression to date? Or even the last two weeks of slaughter?

And wasn't this one of Bush's rationales for invading Iraq, i.e., humanitarian? Seems like the French suddenly find this rationale important now that the US wasn't leading the charge. Or is it that the French don't have the same cushy oil deals with the Colonel that they did with Saddam?

Re:Does that include building a time machine?

[preaction]

So because we didn't do anything in the past, we should never do anything in the present or future? We (the United States) are not allowed to admit we made a mistake in Iraq and try to fix that mistake by stopping our unilateral regime-change actions and instead joining a UN action against Gaddafi? That it is the French and US providing the forces does not change that it is a UN mission.

Re:Does that include building a time machine?

[causality]

We (the United States) are not allowed to admit we made a mistake in Iraq and try to fix that mistake by stopping our unilateral regime-change actions and instead joining a UN action against Gaddafi?

The US never admits it made a mistake. Instead, it changes its plan and claims the new plan is what they meant to do all along. "They have terrible weapons of mass destruction and aided the 9/11 terrorists! Wait, we can't prove that? Err, we meant to liberate them all along, Saddam was a bad guy (even though we taught him everything he knew), yeah, go team go!"

If the US was willing to admit when it makes a policy error, the War on (some) Drugs would have ended at least 30 years ago. Or it would have never been started in the first place and we'd have never pretended that the lesson learned from Prohibition can only apply to ethanol.

I don't think the point was that we should never change our course of action when it's the prudent thing to do. I think the point was, we never seem to use foresight. We will let something build up for decades, during which time it would be a relatively small issue resolved with relative ease, until it becomes a crisis. When there is an insurrection someplace, or all-out war, or something else that's smack-you-in-the-face undeniable, then we say A CRISIS, WE MUST DO SOMETHING! in typical reactionary politician mode. If we paid half that amount of attention to the conditions that cause crises in the first place I think we'd have a McDonalds on Alpha Centauri by now.

Re:Does that include building a time machine?

[Gadget_Guy]

And wasn't this one of Bush's rationales for invading Iraq, i.e., humanitarian?

Was there an uprising going on in Iraq when the invasion began? No, was all about the weapons of mass destruction and how they wouldn't allow the weapons inspectors access to the places where those WMDs were stored. Of course, that wasn't helped by the fact that there were no WMDs and that the "evidence" of their existence was doubted by other countries from the beginning. It turns out the French were right.

In this case, there IS a violent uprising going on. I think that it is right to go in now, and that it was right to wait and see how things would progress before taking action. If it had turned out that the popular support in Libia was enough for the military personnel to turn against their leader then having the UN come charging in would have done more damaged that it cured. It may have galvanized support for Gaddafi if people considered an outside military action to be an invasion.

Re:Does that include building a time machine?

[quax]

The rational for the Iraq war that was initially pushed was "weapons of mass destructions". Humanitarian arguments were mostly introduced after the fact to see what would stick to sell the war.

All this is well documented.

Nice try though.

Re:Does that include building a time machine?

[DarkOx]

Its a popular myth that prohibition was a failure. While its cannot be denied that it created economic conditions that helped finance organized crime which became a major social problem; prohibition had a number of effects most would characterize as positive. Also its modern myth that the repeal movement was primarily motivated by the desire to curb organized crime, the major factor was probably the need for tax revenue during the depreciation, which incidentally was the driver for the recent failed legalization efforts for cannabis in California my how things never change..

* Domestic violence and killings declined vastly during prohibition
So victims of alcohol related crimes were no longer so often innocent women and children drunk men came home to but willing participants in speakeasies. Some would say that was more just.

* Alcohol related illness had become very common and also declined during prohibition
In fact the level of per capita consumption did not return to what it had been until the mid sixties.

I am not advocating for prohibition I think peoples personal freedoms to put any substance(any at all) into their own body should not be infringed. I reach that conclusion being aware of the facts knowing there are consequences, others should too. We should all

Re:Does that include building a time machine?

[arekusu_ou]

Why is it right for the West to poke their noses into another country, YET again.

Some military personnel turned against their leader. This isn't Egypt where it was a popular revolution.

This is a minority, attacking standing government and fighting a losing battle. The standing government does not want to let rebels win and doing all they can to preserve their rule. Any other sovereignty would do the same (though with differing views on excessive). This is a standing government that the West doesn't like so they want to topple it, just like Cuba.

This is just as bad as any other invasion.

And this is vindication to every single terrorist organization out there for defending themselves to extreme measures in the face of Western invasion. They don't have the power to fight against a big bully head on so they are fighting for their very lives any which way they can.

Re:Does that include building a time machine?

[Rei]

"A minority attacking a standing government"? It was a mass uprising against an incredibly brutal regime who they knew would gun them down (but they did it anyway), an uprising that nearly took the entire country before Gadaffi got his largely mercenary army back together and started shelling entire cities to take them back from the people. "Some military personnel"? This was largely a civilian revolt (which is the main reason they're so poorly trained; they have lots of equipment but don't know how to use it effectively; it took them over a week to figure out how to get their first airplane off the ground, and it got shot down the next day).

Baghdad Bob, is that you?

Re:Does that include building a time machine?

[arekusu_ou]

Ghaddafi still has more loyalist. But why should he let his own loyalist die when he can hire mercenaries to defend them against insurgents.

My comment on some military was a comparison with Egypt's military support and the fewer that is neither helping the rebels nor staying on Ghaddafi's side.

And I'm from Massachusetts and sick and tired of the Westerners imposing their will upon the Middle East at the expense of our own people.

Re:Does that include building a time machine?

[khallow]

Ghaddafi still has more loyalist.

I'm going to have to ask for proof that there are more Gaddafi loyalists fighting for Gaddafi than against him. Otherwise this claim just sounds total, 100%, completely outrageous to me.

My comment on some military was a comparison with Egypt's military support and the fewer that is neither helping the rebels nor staying on Ghaddafi's side.

And I'm from Massachusetts and sick and tired of the Westerners imposing their will upon the Middle East at the expense of our own people.

Ok, I'm willing to be dictator of Massachusetts for life. We can't have our people miss out. You'll probably miss out, having been reprocessed for basic materials in the Great Glue Shortage of 2015, but I'm sure the few shattered survivors will have a renewed appreciation for democracy when it's over.

We could also start doing what's right.

Re:Does that include building a time machine?

[Taco Cowboy]

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.

Re:Does that include building a time machine?

[sznupi]

...I think peoples personal freedoms to put any substance(any at all) into their own body should not be infringed. I reach that conclusion being aware of the facts knowing there are consequences, others should too...

Curious, considering how just above you said, paraphrasing, "those are not just personal freedoms" (nvm "awareness of consequences"... a major point, in a way, of substances in question is to lose that awareness; and generally, "if you're satisfied with the kinds of (quite universally) severe limitations existing in a given society, you call it freedom")

Re:Does that include building a time machine?

[arekusu_ou]

I'm from the US and I believe the West = Christian = Evil

Re:Does that include building a time machine?

[corbettw]

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.

Considering the Arab League supports the intervention, you're probably (hopefully) wrong.

Canada is there too!

[spammeister]

Canada is there guys, no really, I saw it on TV.

We're bringing the free beer and good times!

Re:Canada is there too!

[mrclisdue]

I can't wait to set up my Tim Horton's trailer; coffee, donuts, and all the Bieber them troops'll ever need.

cheers,

Re:Canada is there too!

[jroysdon]

I thought it was just part of the Hoth back lot, where they filmed Ice Road Truckers and stuff.

Maybe it's because Bush isn't leading it

[unassimilatible]

And the French don't have cushy oil deals with Gaddafi as they did with Saddam, the real reason Chirac opposed the Iraq War so fervently. There are wars for oil, and there are anti-war movements for oil as well.

Re:Maybe it's because Bush isn't leading it

[mijelh]

Italy does have oil deals with Gaddafi and they are supporting the intervention. Maybe oil is not the unique and absolute answer to life, universe, and everything.

Re:Maybe it's because Bush isn't leading it

[quax]

Au contrair, mon ami.

Why?

[Bill_Royle]

Bush coalition-building / nation-building = bad
Obama coalition-building / nation-building = good

Wait, what?

The fact that the French took the lead on this says volumes about how big of a pussy Obama really is.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you seriously suggesting that Obama is a pussy because he doesn't blow in all Team America* style? Jumping the gun and leading the charge does not define a non-pussy - it defines a self-important vigilante moron.

[*] - America, FUCK YEAH!

Re:Why?

[athmanb]

You got your history turned upside down. The UN agreed with the Afghanistan war in 2001 mission as there was a proper reason for it. Only when Bush extended it to Iraq in 2003 for no reason at all against the will of every country other than the UK (prime minister only, the population was against the war too) and a few paid off votes did the global opinion turn around.

And opening a second front in Iraq and splitting the forces is one of the main reason why Afghanistan turned into the quagmire it is now, so there's no surprise in countries like Spain and Germany wanting to pull out from there after the US fucked that one up.

Re:Why?

[thetartanavenger]

The fact that the French took the lead on this says volumes about how big of a pussy Obama really is.

I really don't think the states needs to flash the size of its dick again quite so soon. If it's going to be done, it should be done right, and welllll, America doesn't exactly have the best reputation for taking charge and doing it right at the moment.

Just to note, I'm in the UK and to be honest I'd say the same for our country right now. Also, I recommend you actually read the quick analysis on the bbc website. The most important phrases in the analysis I feel are this:

Crucially it excludes any "foreign occupation force" in sweeping terms. This is a message to the Arab world - this is not another Iraq.

and this:

[] a final settlement to the crisis in Libya must be political and reached by the parties to the conflict themselves

This is not the same as what Bush did. Libya UN Resolution 1973: Text analysed

Re:Why?

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Wow. Political, military, and historical ignorance plus a gratuitous anti-French slur all in four lines! (Not counting whitespace.) You must have worked really hard to pack that much small-mindedness into such a short post. Um, congratulations, I guess.

Re:Why?

[ScentCone]

Be careful when you tell other people they're getting their history wrong. The UN authorized force to deal with Saddam when he invaded Kuwait. He never complied with the terms of the "cease fire" that saved his skin as he pulled back from that invasion, and he continued to shoot at the allied aircraft enforcing the UN-approved no-fly zone set up to prevent his ongoing slaughter of innocents in the north and south. He never stopped fighting following his invasion of Kuwait. All the rest is beside the point, and demanded the use of force to finally stop his regime. On top of that, of course, he never complied with the UN mandates that he allow proper inspections to find out what he did with the mountains of VX gas and other goodies that UN inspectors saw on the ground.

Combine that with Saddam's ongoing construction of the long-range missiles he promised to stop building/importing, his publicly announced cash payments to suicide bombers, his smuggling operations with places like North Korea, his violation of the terms of the financial aid packages intended to feed and care for his citizens (he used the money for weapons, cash for cronies, and more palace building) and you have the conditions that led to the UN authorizing force to remove him. Don't know how you forgot that part, but apparently you did.

Re:Why?

[shutdown -p now]

The fact that the French took the lead on this says volumes about how big of a pussy Obama really is.

Letting France rather than US lead it is to show the world that this is a genuine peacekeeping operation. US does not have a lot of credibility in that area after Iraq. This isn't to say that US shouldn't participate - it just should not look like US alone is in charge.

Re:Why?

[painandgreed]

You forgot to mention that not only did Hussein not comply with UN mandates with regards to chemical weapons (even though he wasn't developing them), but was actively spreading rumors and leaking information that he was to his neighboring countries so that he could still use fear of them as a stick. This is why every country was for the invasion of Iraq or at least silent except for France and Germany. Hussein was playing the bully and got bear down for it. He could probably still be in power if he had just let inspectors inspect and fail to find the things he didn't have anyway.

BTW, guess what two countries oil companies were pumping and selling Hussein's oil and making lots of money? France and Germany.

Re:Why?

[quax]

Weapons inspectors have been Iraq up until the last war started.

To quote from wikipedia:

During the lead-up to war in March 2003, Hans Blix had found no stockpiles of WMD and had made significant progress toward resolving open issues of disarmament noting "proactive" but not always the "immediate" Iraqi cooperation as called for by UN Security Council Resolution 1441. He concluded that it would take âoebut monthsâ to resolve the key remaining disarmament tasks.[4]

To compare this truly international effort with regards to Libya with the war of aggression against Iraq is nothing but convenient revisionism.

Re:Why?

[bstender]

Bush coalition-builidng / invading a nation on false pretenses = very very bad
Obama coalition - joining / answering a desperate plea for help _from the people_ and promising not to invade = much much better

the fact that the French took the lead on this says volumes about the care taken NOT to be a naked aggressor like _Bush_. (try again)

Re:Why?

[ScentCone]

Weapons inspectors have been Iraq up until the last war started.

In the country, but prevented from actually going where they wanted to go. In the country, but handed mountains of false or vague "documentation" about the disposition of things like the huge VX stores that were seen are reported by UN inspectors for years. Of course you know all of this, and are just trying to ignore the parts of the history that get in the way of your hate-fest.

Re:Why?

[quax]

hate-fest ?

Speak for yourself. I am mostly saddened by this history. A regrettable and preventable loss of live and so much unnecessary suffering .

Re:Why?

[ScentCone]

A regrettable and preventable loss of live and so much unnecessary suffering

Are you talking about the regrettable and preventable loss of life caused by Gaddafi using his military to attack people in his own country? Yes, that was both of those things. And because it was easily seen how regrettable it was going to be, and plain as day how preventable it could be, the main problem was that force was not used more quickly. The people who could have stopped the slaughter spent 30 days talking to each other about it while Gaddafi's hired goons (first) and military (later) went about butchering people. Regrettable, and preventable. We could have used the same force that was used over the last few days to save considerable lives over the last several weeks. That's what you mean, right?

Re:Why?

[quax]

You seem to confuse me with a knee-jerk pacifist.

IMHO the truly international effort against Gaddafi is fully justified. It's a large diverse alliance with solid diplomatic backing. Same holds for when Bush the elder led an alliance to kick out Saddam's forces from Kuwait. Bush Jr's Iraq endeavorer on the other hand was misbegotten and ill conceived from the get go.

Re:Why?

[ScentCone]

Bush Jr's Iraq endeavor was the uninterrupted continuation of the earlier kick-Saddam-out-of-Kuwait action. Saddam never complied with the UN's terms when he was pushed back from that invasion. He continued to shoot at aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones set up during that event, he continued to obstruct UN inspectors checking out his large stash of WMDs (do you know where all of that VX went? neither does the UN), he continued to build the long-range missiles he agreed to stop making, he continued to import weapons from places like North Korea, and so on. It was his years of deceit and defiance of the terms to which he had already agreed (when pulling out of Kuwait) that led to the additional UN sanctions and the UN approval of the use of force to remove him. Blaming Bush Jr on having the urge to get rid of Saddam completely ignores that it was Clinton's 8-year policy to remove him as well.

Re:Why?

[quax]

Blaming Bush Jr on having the urge to get rid of Saddam.

Don't blame him at all for that urge. That urge was fully justified and I shared it.

I blame him for the amateurish diplomacy, lackluster coalition building and too few boots on the ground when he finally moved in.

It was not the right time to act on Iraq. He wasn't able to establish a unified Western coalition like his father did. No new solid security council resolution. And then when he moved in regardless his administration completely underestimated the resources needed for a successful occupation.

He shouldn't have done it in the first place and then he didn't even do it right.

Sometimes you have to bid your time and don't give into your urges. But for Gaddafi the time is nay.

Alternative

[Anonymous Coward]

Gadhafi is a dictator, no dispute there. So was Saddam. We brought "democracy" to Iraq and we are all witnesses of the consequence of that. Maybe democracy is not the best model for the Arab world. I'm reading today, in Egypt, where people fought for the freedom, radical islamists threw stones and shoes at Mohamed ElBaradei who is important pro-democracy figure there. What can we expect in Libya after Gadhafi? What do we know about the rebels there? A little known fact: the standard of living in Libya was one of the highest in all of Africa prior to these events. Does anyone think that after this it's gonna get better?

Re:Alternative

[bstender]

you are several kinds of retarded.

Historical happenstance

[Anonymous Coward]

8 years ago today ANOTHER war started in the Middle East...

Re:Historical happenstance

[Anonymous Coward]

8 years ago? Try nearly 21.

We were holding hands with the UN that time too and we got stuck footing the bill on baby sitting a situation that the UN didn't have the balls to put up to solid resolutions. Now we're heading down the same road again. Some are going to be acting pretty smug about this but what if we get stuck in a quagmire again with the same outcome. We have even less cause to be there this time.

Of course, there are those on here who are trying to sizes this up against 2003 era politics and claim that things are different but if you roll back the clock some thing really isn't too much different from 1990. The path we take from here may be a bit better stepped from past experience but I guarantee you that we'll suffer for it. Economically and in the loss of life... and we're on so much worse a footing this time around in so many ways.

Wait a minute

[unassimilatible]

Bush did make the humanitarian case against Hussein as well. In fact, Saddam did gas thousands of his own people. And that questionable intelligence was propagated by every major intel agency in the world, not just the US. Saddam was as ruthless as dictators get. His idea of a fun Saturday night was to break out VHS tapes of dissidents being tortured, with some Jiffy Pop.

I think the Iraq War was a political disaster, and would have advised against it on those grounds, but was morally just, WMD's or not. Just as you can't justify a warrant by what you find after the search, you can't impute 20/20 hindsight on probable cause after the search either. Saddam did have like 16 months to cover his tracks before the US invasion. Just sayin'...

Re:Wait a minute

[metlin]

I think the Iraq War was a political disaster, and would have advised against it on those grounds, but was morally just, WMD's or not.

HAHAHAHA! Thanks for a great laugh. So, we are in the process of enforcing your morals on the rest of the world?

Apart from the fact that our intervention caused Iraq to splinter into factions and result in tens of thousands of deaths because of sectarian violence, the moral high-ground does not fly when we're guilty of far worse.

Re:Wait a minute

[sznupi]

And that questionable intelligence was propagated by every major intel agency in the world, not just the US

Continuing to believe in such myths doesn't make them true...

Heck, and check sometimes how large part of the US population (or... even US troops in Iraq) still thinks Iraq was involved in 9/11, and how that was the reason for the invasion.

Re:Wait a minute

[unassimilatible]

HAHAHAHA! Thanks for a great laugh. So, we are in the process of enforcing your morals on the rest of the world?

Actually, it seems like the world is in the process of enforcing our morals as we sit back and watch. I believe I said the opposite about Iraq, but you chose to take from my post what you wanted for your agenda.

But I'm confused; in what moral universe is allowing Saddam and his henchmen to rape his enemies' daughters in front of them, throw dissidents into tree shredders, acid baths, or naked into steel coffins to slowly bake in the desert sun the righteous path? My point was that while throwing our a clearly evil, ruthless dictator is a moral good, there are a lot of countries like that and we can't rebuild them all, due to a lack of domestic and international political will.

I wonder, if you walked outside of your house, and some guy on the street from some country where women were treated as chattel, was beating his wife to death, would you intervene? How about if you were in his country, would you "enforce your morals" on him and try to stop it? Especially if several native people on the street wanted you to? Even if you had to kill him to do it? Is it really morally different when it is 10, 100, or 1,000,000 people you are defending? How big must the number get to where it's no longer any of your business? What was the Stalin quote, one person killed is a tragedy, 1,000,000 is a statistic?

Apart from the fact that our intervention caused Iraq to splinter into factions and result in tens of thousands of deaths because of sectarian violence

You want to make an omelet, you're going to break some eggs. A lot of people died in our American Revolution, and even more in Part II, the Civil War. I believe, the vast majority of Iraqis who were not part of the small (10%) pro-Saddam Sunni Baathists wanted his ass gone. But today, a determined billionaire despot with modern weapons can never be deposed by a citizenry with muskets (of course in Egypt, Mubarak lost said military). Without someone's outside help, that sociopathic family would continue to terrorize Iraq forever.

I think 50 years from now, assuming Iraq is a pluralist democracy, The US-led Iraq War and rebuilding will be looked at as a moral good.

the moral high-ground does not fly when we're guilty of far worse.

I'm not sure to what you are referring, but it is lunacy to suggest that America ever did the things Saddam did to his people, let alone in any of our lifetimes.

Civilians = Armed Rebels?

[peterindistantland]

Protecting civilians means also protecting armed rebels? I'm surprised no one spotted this.

Re:Civilians = Armed Rebels?

[mangu]

Protecting civilians means also protecting armed rebels? I'm surprised no one spotted this.

Do the words "legitimate self defense" mean anything to you? Or do you think those civilians should let Gaddafi kill them and go get their quota of virgins in Paradise?

Could cost $1.2 Billion per month

[danbuter]

http://www.alan.com/2011/03/18/no-fly-zone-could-cost-up-to-1-2-billion-a-month/ This is going to get very expensive. Luckily, GE can build more missiles and sell them to the government. (Check into how much GE donated to the Dems and how often their CEO gets White House visits. Basically, follow the money).

Dictators yesterday and today

[Kohath]

Long, long ago, I heard that it was wrong to fight ruthless dictators in oil-rich countries. It was wrong even if the dictator in question had viciously attacked his own people, supported terrorism and harbored terrorists. It was a sure sign of Western racism because the people who lived in that country aren't white. Even the fact that the UN had imposed sanctions against that country, like they have against Libya, was not a mitigating factor.

Dictators in non-white, oil-rich countries should be free to hurt whomever they want, for whatever reason they want, in any manner they want, inside their own country and, using terrorist attacks, in other countries. That's what we learned. But apparently the lessons were forgotten.

Maybe it's because the anti-war protests were mostly phony all along.

They told me if I voted for John McCain that these war policies wouldn't change, that we'd still have troops in Iraq and Afganistan for years, and that the President might even attack other oil-rich countries. And they were right!

Re:Dictators yesterday and today

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Amazingly, not all wars are created equal. In fact, not all wars in oil-rich Arab countries are created equal. I know this might be difficult for you to understand.

Re:Dictators yesterday and today

[Kohath]

Especially when it is asserted with zero supporting arguments.

Re:Dictators yesterday and today

[Daniel Dvorkin]

The assumption you seem to be making, that Iraq=Libya and Hussein=Gaddafi, is so absurd on the face of it that I really see no reason I should have to refute it. If you want to make the argument that they're somehow equivalent, go ahead, but you're the one who's going to have to bring some more facts to the table.

Re:Dictators yesterday and today

[reeno49]

It's posts like yours I'm saddened to not have any mod points. Keep it up. Seriously. :)

Re:Dictators yesterday and today

[Kohath]

...but you're the one who's going to have to bring some more facts to the table.

Facts from me: 6.
Facts from you: 0.

Re:Dictators yesterday and today

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Ah, I see you're using the right-wing definition of "fact" as "something I wish to be true because it supports my preconceived notions." (Except that's probably too long and polysyllabic a phrase for your Beck-addled brain. Sorry, it's hard to express complex ideas using the Tea Party Soundbite Dictionary.) [pat pat] Go play, kid, the grown-ups are talking.

Re:Dictators yesterday and today

[the linux geek]

You're right. Saddam Hussein and Muammar Qaddafi aren't equivalent.

Saddam was far, far worse.

Re:Dictators yesterday and today

[Kohath]

Score is still 6-0. And you're arguing it should be only 4-0 or something. You have still offered zero facts.

Re:Dictators yesterday and today

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Saddam was far, far worse.

The people of Libya might disagree.

Re:Dictators yesterday and today

[the linux geek]

Have entire medium-sized towns in Libya been exterminated with sarin? Hundreds of thousands of people were killed in the 1991 uprising against Hussein alone. That's not counting the late-80's pogroms against Kurds and Iranians, the campaigns against the Marsh Arabs, or the thousands of soldiers executed while attempting to retreat from Kuwait.

But don't let me get in the way of the absolutely surreal pro-war narrative around here.

Re:Dictators yesterday and today

[russotto]

The assumption you seem to be making, that Iraq=Libya and Hussein=Gaddafi, is so absurd on the face of it that I really see no reason I should have to refute it. If you want to make the argument that they're somehow equivalent, go ahead, but you're the one who's going to have to bring some more facts to the table.

Hmm. Iraq: Oil rich middle eastern country. Libya: Oil rich middle eastern country. Hussein: Ruthless dictator of oil rich middle eastern country. Gaddaffi: Ruthless dictator of oil rich middle eastern country. Hussein: Kills civilians without a thought. Gaddaffi: Ditto. Gaddaffi: Name difficult to spell Hussein: Name easy to spell.. there's a difference. Gaddaffi: Flamboyantly insane. Hussein: Less flamboyantly insane... hey, two differences.

Re:Dictators yesterday and today

[PCM2]

Qadaffi has been a state sponsor of international terrorism for decades. Libyan-initiated terrorist attacks have claimed the lives of countless American and European civilians. Qadaffi himself has admitted as much to the United Nations. As society, Qadaffi's Libya is comparable to Hussein's Iraq or Kim Jong Il's North Korea in terms of repression and the use of intelligence forces against its own citizens. Qadaffi likes to use assassination to silence his critics. He has put down attempts at revolt using violence in the past, killing hundreds of his own people. Personally, Qadaffi is belligerent, combative, and seems to suffer from delusions of grandeur, all of which make him unlikely to respond to diplomacy.

But don't let any of that get in the way of the absolutely surreal anti-intervention narrative around here.

Re:Dictators yesterday and today

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not saying that there isn't some truth to what you're saying, but there's a difference between invading a country that's not at war and choosing to support one side of a civil war. In the former case, the western power is imposing its will, for ill or good, on the country. In the latter case, the country is at least partially determining its own destiny.

Re:Dictators yesterday and today

[quax]

It is pretty established fact that Muammar Qaddafi sponsored the Lockerbie bombing

He also order a terrorist attack on a disco in Berlin

The Bush administration tried desperately to prove a connection between international terrorism and Saddam but could not.

What is you contention that Saddam was worse than Qaddafi based on?

Re:Dictators yesterday and today

[quax]

Your argument is ironic because it basically makes the case that the US should have moved earlier against Saddam.

At any rate Qaddafi had the Chad to play with and to commit his atrocities. Added bonus for him this country was so poor and unimportant that absolutely nobody paid attention.

Re:Dictators yesterday and today

[Carewolf]

There seems to be one difference more... Something important.. Can't remember what..

Might it have something to do with an popular revolt against them?

Re:Dictators yesterday and today

[AlXtreme]

Chad was backed by France and indirectly by the US, and actually won in the end. Chad was Qadaffi's Vietnam.

Re:Dictators yesterday and today

[quax]

Just as in Vietnam the death-toll was nevertheless considerable.

Re:Dictators yesterday and today

[harley78]

You used to be able to smoke in McDonalds too. "Some sings have changed Dr. Jones....and some sings have not...ahhh?"

Re:Dictators yesterday and today

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/africa/lyafrica.gif

Coalition of the bankrupt

[stoev]

US: bankrupt
UK: bankrupt
France: close to bankrupt, just not so well known
Belgium: bankrupt country without a government goes to war ...

Growing economies don't participate in this stupid war.
Germany - No, Brasil - No, India - No, China - No...

Re:Coalition of the bankrupt

[ColdWetDog]

US: bankrupt UK: bankrupt
France: close to bankrupt, just not so well known
Belgium: bankrupt country without a government goes to war ...

Libya - Nearly 2 million barrels of oil per day

Now, does it make sense?

Re:Coalition of the bankrupt

[painandgreed]

Libya - Nearly 2 million barrels of oil per day [wikipedia.org]

Now, does it make sense?

Not really. Even if everybody went in, took over the country, made everybody there a slave and pumped the oil for free, it wouldn't pay the cost of the war. Same with Iraq.

If anything, its because if those countries all do go bankrupt, then there'll be war, and this means their fighter pilots and support crews can get combat experience without any real chance of danger before the real thing.

Re:Coalition of the bankrupt

[Anonymous Coward]

What? 2 million barrels of oil per day is $220,000,000. The 110 Tomahawks just launched cost about $65,000,000. After that the main cost is going to be in keeping the planes and ships operational in the area, which isn't massively more than what it costs to keep them at peacetime operational readiness. Even if we went all out with the close air support and shot Mavericks all over the place, they only cost $160,000 apiece.

Mentioning Iraq in the same breath as Libya is intellectual dishonesty of the highest order. Occupation won't be needed in Libya. We're not getting involved because we expect the people to greet us with open arms and cooperate fully in overthrowing their oppressors, we're getting involved because they've already started overthrowing their oppressor and they'll fail if we don't help them out. And Gaddafi will massacre everyone in Benghazi regardless of whether they're rebellious or not.

The man is murdering people. It makes me sick that anyone could oppose this action.

Re:Coalition of the bankrupt

[Anonymous Coward]

Please learn to spell "Brazil" in English.

B-R-A-Z-I-L. There is no "s" in Brazil.

Thank you.

Whatever...

[Anonymous Coward]

For the longest time the people of Libya were considered "rebels", and now they are called "civilians"... I think that Obama spent more time on his "March Madness" chart than in consideration of those people!

Propaganda machine

[countertrolling]

A while back Hillary was complaining that our propaganda machine paled when compared to "theirs". She's full of it. Al Jazeera could never convince us to go to war three times in ten years as well as CNN and FOX do and have. Nobody, but nobody can beat us in public relations. We rule the world. Neither China or Russia can stop us. No doubt they will expect us to share the plunder, and I'm sure we will to keep the peace.

UN? TRY FUCKING US !!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the US doing the dirty deeds done dirt cheap !! Those fuckers get a kick out of killing !!

What?

[dlenmn]

Bush coalition-building / nation-building = bad
Obama coalition-building / nation-building = good

Wait, what?

So with those two lines you're trying to make Obama's coalition building and Bush's coalition building look similar...

The fact that the French took the lead on this says volumes about how big of a pussy Obama really is.

and then you're criticizing Obama for not building/leading the coalition? Are you claiming that he's building the coalition or not?

Si Vis Pacem

[ThunderBird89]

Para Bellum!

French Military

[Anonymous Coward]

French Military

"I'd rather have a German division in front of me, than a French one behind."

Re:French Military

[Anonymous Coward]

Bah, the French have Generals while Qaddafi is only a Colonel.

Spot the pattern

[Anonymous Coward]

Operation Iraqi Liberation
Operation Interference Libya ...

It has been long decided (60s? 70s?) that North Africa is to belong to the EU (in the long very run).

Re:Spot the pattern

[Anonymous Coward]

You might want to look at the map: Iraq is in Asia.

Security Council vs Chain of Command

[Fractal Dice]

Does (in theory) an edict from the UN security council ordering a conflict to end override the chain of command within a sovereign nation? I realize its a messy and imperfect world (and we were possibly within hours of a catastrophic massacre) but I've never been a fan of the medieval idea that in the great game of diplomacy, you kill pawns to influence the mind of a king.

Re:Security Council vs Chain of Command

[Black Parrot]

Does (in theory) an edict from the UN security council ordering a conflict to end override the chain of command within a sovereign nation?

From what I've read, scholars in international law say the answer is not at all clear.

Re:Security Council vs Chain of Command

[Fractal Dice]

This would seem to be a rather important point to clarify, wouldn't it? I mean, if a rank-and-file anonymous loyal Lybian soldier of good conscience but no strong political opinions is looking at situation right now, what does the world legally and ethically expect him to be doing right now?

Re:Security Council vs Chain of Command

[mangu]

if a rank-and-file anonymous loyal Lybian soldier of good conscience but no strong political opinions is looking at situation right now, what does the world legally and ethically expect him to be doing right now?

To do what many Libyan soldiers have already done: defect and join the anti-Gaddafi forces.

Re:Security Council vs Chain of Command

[painandgreed]

AFAIK, the UN is not a body of law, it's resolutions are not law, and things signed there do not even have the power of treaties. It is a soapbox for countries to publicly discuss about issues. A resolution like this has no power, it is just a formal statement made openly and to the world that the great powers don't like you, world opinion is against you, and you don't have any friends. The countries are doing what they are doing as individual countries under their own laws, but having been made to go through this effort in the UN, they might as well coordinate their efforts too.

Re:Security Council vs Chain of Command

[Anonymous Coward]

The person or institution with the power is the one that is able to successfully wield it. So if the UN manages to end the conflict in Libya, then the UN had the power to order the conflict in Libya to end. ;)

Re:Security Council vs Chain of Command

[currently_awake]

The UN only has legal jurisdiction in international matters, not internal affairs like a civil war. All power flows from the ability to deny others things they value, the UN has no such ability (nor the power that comes from it).

Expensive game

[Anonymous Coward]

The US is now pissing away $600,000 Cruise Missiles like they grow on damned trees, against a people and a nation that pose zero threat to the safety, security or sovereignty of America.

If Libya fell off the face of the earth tomorrow, Americans would pay a little more for gas - no further consequences - and the American government obviously doesn't give a shit about that.

LIbyans are perfectly capable of throwing out their own dictator, should they decide to so do. Raining high-dollar American hardware in their heads doesn't change that.

Congratulations.

Re:Expensive game

[justinlee37]

Bullshit. The Libyans can't throw out Qaddafi and his supporters without help. They have air and land superiority ... fighter jets, tanks, and a well-organized and disciplined infantry. I have also heard reports that Qaddafi's forces have attacked the rebels with chemical gas, although this may not be true.

The rebels are mostly civilians and their best weapons are RPGs. Their leader is an IT worker with no military experience. They were losing ground, too, with the Libyan military approaching the rebellion's stronghold. If captured, they would likely be slaughtered.

As someone who opposed both the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, I think these cruise missiles were well-spent.

Re:Expensive game

[Anonymous Coward]

Those missiles if unspent would just end up wasting away in a weapons stockpile eventually. I'd be more concerned about the costs of orchestrating the forces.

Not related in the least...

[taharvey]

Iraq was a unilateral American war, trying to single handedly force democracy on a country whether they want it or not..
Libya actions are air support for a popular democratic uprising.

Just because both countries are Arabs, does not make the military action the same thing.

Either way, nobody is under the illusion that war in Libya results in more oil.

Re:Not related in the least...

[arekusu_ou]

It's not a popular democratic uprising.

Egypt was a popular democratic uprising and they didn't need the Western help.

This is a minority rebel uprising. And won't succeed without Western help. And the longer the fighting, the more the causality. It makes sense for the standing sovereign to use any means possible to end the fighting as fast as possible.

See the difference?

Re:Not related in the least...

[quax]

The success of the Egyptian uprising was not guaranteed until the military eventually sided with the protesters.

This is like arguing that because the Myanmar army was able to squash peaceful protests that obviously a majority is supporting the junta.

An absurd stance.

Re:Not related in the least...

[taharvey]

Egypt didn't need western help only because the military didn't turn on the people. If you look back at the news reels, Libya two weeks ago looked exactly like the Egyptian during the early part of the protests, with wide popular support.

There is no benefit here for the US other than to protect the civilian population. Indeed, by all accounts Obama, who is generally reluctant to get involved in other countries,was swayed by Clinton and Rice who were pushing to avoid a humanitarian crisis – This in part was driven by Clintons experience with her husbands term as President, where his biggest regret wasn't stepping in on the Rwandan conflict.

How is this appropriate for slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought this site was about technology - not about repeating the stories you can find EVERYWHERE else!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What could possibly go wrong?

[Black Parrot]

Maybe this is for the best, but I have a queasy feeling about how it's going to turn out.

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, I think the USA and the UN (as usual) are a bit late off of the fence. Dr Evil is f*cking his citizens. Reagan was a butthole. But Gaddafi is the kind of anachronism we can actually do something about.

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[hedwards]

We could still fuck it up. The question is how we handle it if they win. If we largely stay out of it beyond providing training and resources to conduct their elections we'll have an opportunity to help fight the view that we're complete bastards that will play nice with dictators for our own well being. But, if we don't respect the outcome of free and fair elections because we don't like the outcome, it's going to be basically just another episode to reinforce the terrorist point of view that we're the enemy.

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[Xyrus]

America!
FUCK YEAH!
We're bombing Libya, awe'll win the fucking day!

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[Anonymous Coward]

i believe there are good chances things are going right this time...

average people in that country have invited EU and US to support them in the air... not on the ground..

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[Anonymous Coward]

It must be very difficult for Obama true believers to reconcile. I note that OB felt like he needed to wait for UN permission before committing US forces to war. Funny that there did not seem to be any feeling that it was important to consult any other branch of the US government.

Certainly we will be told that launching the war from Rio was a clever bit of mis-direction. But I wonder...

So when there are uprisings in Syria and the dictator there unleashes his secret police, will that mean we attack ? How about Iran or Saudi Arabia ? I suppose the difference will be that we cannot conjure up the illusion of legitimacy of a UN vote.

The reasonableness of this policy has pros and cons. I for one would like to see regime change in Libya and I trust that the true policy flows out of agreement on common interests between France, US and UK....but with this confused and disturbed president it's difficult to be certain.

We will see in the next few days is a mere no-fly zone is enough to tip the balance in favor or the "rebels" - whoever they might be. Next step of course is introduction of US special forces to coordinate rebel actions with US air support. That would be decisive...but is it desirable....?

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[Anonymous Coward]

Especially as the leader of the rebels is Gaddafi's ex chief of justice. Looks like we finally found our safe pair of hands to ensure stabilty is reinstated.

WHERE OH WHERE ARE MY MOD POINTS?!

[RasputinAXP]

Mod parent up.

It's not Iraq

[Anonymous Coward]

It's very important to keep in mind that this is not Iraq.

First of all, the revolution was sparked by the people, and fought by the people before the UN intervention. In the present case, the UN is in fact offering military SUPPORT, not a full-scale military intervention and is not starting anything.

Second, one major problem with Iraq is the huge amount of civilian casualties, estimated at 100k. Whether they were killed by the Taliban, lack of medicine* or American troops doesn't matter: the war killed them, without the war they would have lived, and the war was started by the USA.
In Libya, the war is already started so it's definitely not the UN's fault if people die indirectly as a result. The UN is indeed trying to reduce the damage that will occur.
*The stats actually do not include people who died indirectly from the war, such as lack of medical treatment for injuries/diseases not caused by the war or lack of food.

Third, the UN must stick to offering military support where needed and nothing else. Air strikes on military assets are efficient - they are accurate and do not require a presence on the ground. Jets and bombers can take off from nearby countries, drop bombs on very specific military assets in Libya, then go back to where they came from. No territorial occupation, no troops spending too much time among the population (which can put the population at extra risk by drawing enemy fire or causing troops to mistake civilians for enemies). On top of that, when foreign troops are on the ground the local population may feel "invaded" even if troops are on their side, so at least air strikes avoid this and the population feels like they're leading the fight.
The Libyans must be in control or else they will resent the UN and things will not get better. Basically, the UN must offer the required help but needs also to keep their involvement to a minimum. Most of all, the UN must make sure that Libyans are happy about their help. If at any point the Libyans want to UN to leave them alone, the UN must back off not matter what help the UN believes it could provide. The moment the UN takes control, we're headed for another Iraq.

Fourth: Mistakes will happen. A bomb might hit civilian assets by mistake and kill innocent people.
This is a problem in Iraq and Afghanistan because when it happens we point the finger to the USA and say "It wouldn't have happened if you hadn't started this mess".
But if the Libyans started the revolution, if they asked for the help of the UN or at least approved of it and if the UN takes extra care to avoid errors, then the UN can't be blamed for mistakes. What I'm saying here is not that the UN must cowardly put all the responsibility on someone else. But it's important that the Libyans do not come to hate the UN's involvement or else the new government will be anti-democracy and anti-Western World. It's important that the Libyans see that the Western World is a friend and the UN must be a genuine friend.

Fifth: the USA should not have gotten involved in this. The USA have a terrible image in the Middle-East, Africa and pretty much all third-world and all Islamic countries. This is unlikely to improve the image of the USA, instead it's much more likely to make Libyans think "If the USA is involved, the UN's help might be a bad thing after all". This just makes it easier for terrorists and religious fanatics to gain support from the population and take power.
I can't believe the US government was that stupid. And frankly, I'm actually wondering if the USA really are involved because they want to help the Libyans. I'm suspecting they can't be that stupid and did this on purpose to serve whatever new megalomaniac secret plan the CIA/White House/DoD came up with.
I won't say the USA should back out, it's too late anyway, the harm is done. The UN intervention has been tainted with the mark of conquest by the USA now.

Sixth: the UN must back out once their role of offering military support is done. They have to let the Libyans choose the

Re:It's not Iraq

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously written from the perspective of someone who either believes or wants us to believe that a situation did not exist in Iraq pre-2003.

Re:It's not Iraq

[Anonymous Coward]

I think I agree with most of your points except the 5th. I think it was imperative that the US showed support for the revolution IN SOME WAY. They were too slow off the start when the 'rebels' had the momentum. They should have backed the revolution more quickly and securely to show other middle eastern peoples that if they also revolt, they too would have support - think Algeria, Yemen, Bahrain. I agree that the US is hated and should almost never have boots on the ground. I agree with Gwynne Dyer who in the Globe and Mail [canada's National Daily] who suggested the Egyptians are in the best position [militarily] to support the revolution. Problem is they are kinda busy getting their own shit together. It would have been an incredible moment to see a Middle Eastern Nation backing another's revolution. At the very least a probable slaughter has been temporarily prevented - hopefully much longer. I am concerned with the House of Saud rolling into Manama to help reduce the protests there.

Re:It's not Iraq

[Anonymous Coward]

Without the US where do you get enough planes? Also where do you get the planes to take out radar/SAM's (i.e. stealth planes like B-2)?

Combat Aircraft:
UK: 210 + 40-60? Navy
France: 306 + 70 Navy
Italy: 231 + 16 Navy
US: 2400 (1000 F-16's alone) + 300 Marine + 750 Navy

Re:It's not Iraq

[countertrolling]

Yeah right... And Iraq isn't Vietnam isn't Korea isn't WWII isn't the "Great War" - to end all wars, bla bla bla.. You just can't say no. Once again you swallowed the whole kielbasa.. So pathetic

Re:It's not Iraq

[AP31R0N]

You're a willfully ignorant asshole. And yes, a cowardly partisan sheep.

It's all about the oil.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sadly, this operation has absolutely nothing at all to do with the humanitarian situation. The target is to secure oil resources. If rebels and other rabble can use the situation to throw Gaddaffi out, wow, then that's nice collateral benefit.

Now, I hope Gaddaffi has really gotten rid of his WMDs. Otherwise it could get nasty.

All the "humanitarian help" kool-aid drinkers would do well to check up how Libya has biggest oil reserves in whole North Africa, and how Libya has world-wide the 9th biggest reserves.

Hello, Mr. Zhirinovsky!

[mangu]

The google news pages should be covered with protests, and I hear crickets...

I'm sure you could get some of your supporters to make those protests. Oh, you have no supporters? How sad.

Re:Hello, Mr. Zhirinovsky!

[countertrolling]

You are a pitch carrying mob. You really don't know how sad indeed. More than sad... Frightening. Twilight Zone/Outer Limits type scary. You robotically obey the TV..

Honest question

[Anonymous Coward]

How much Pentagon bots in those comments?

It has a shitolad of sunlight though...

[denzacar]

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.

Is the massive French involvement

[Anonymous Coward]

related to Gadaffi having paid for Sarcozy's election and threatening to make the bill public ?

Peacekeeping vs picking sides

[shutdown -p now]

I fully support the military action in Libya, because nothing short of that is going to stop mass murder of civilian population that is perpetrated by Gaddafi forces in rebelling parts of the country. Good for them that they've acted swiftly enough, too (one month sounds like a lot, but when it comes to world diplomacy it is remarkably fast).

However, I'm afraid that UN forces will make the same mistake that NATO did in Bosnia and especially Kosovo - acting as peacekeepers in name, but picking a side and sticking with it in reality. In Kosovo this was most prominent - when Serbs were burning down mosques, killing Albanians and driving them out into Albanian, NATO was quick to intervene. But when Serbian army and paramilitaries withdrew, and the only force remaining in the province was KLA, the latter started burning down churches, killing Serbs, and driving them out into Serbia - and KFOR stood aside and watched.

Now, if the rebels prevail, I don't think anyone is going to shed tears if the "colonel" hangs, trial or no trial. But the sides in this civil war are largely arranged around tribal identity - Qadhadfa vs the rest of them. We say that the rebels are "pro-West", but so was KLA, by their own words - which did not stop them to partake in genocide themselves when they had the upper hand. So if the rebels win, and start massacring Qadhadfa - would the West also intervene militarily to stop that? Somehow, I doubt it, which is too bad, and would discredit the whole operation. I hope I'm wrong.

Grudges

[Anonymous Coward]

"We must kill Gaddafi's children. The first ritual sacrifice was the daughter. Now the sons must be shredded to pieces! Execute our plan to please the almighty relatives and frieds of the Lost in Lockerbie! Where is my cat, again?" was heard through the doors of the State Department.

Re:Grudges

[Zontar The Mindless]

"We must kill Gaddafi's children. The first ritual sacrifice was the daughter...

That's some fucked-up shit, man.

Gaddafi is nothing if not a congenital liar, and this case was hardly any different. He claimed that his "adopted daughter" was killed in the 1986 bombing of Libya, but this was later shown to be nothing more than propaganda.

So..

[Anonymous Coward]

So..How does this affect me, Joe Sixpack. I'm eating my fast foot, watching cable TV, drinking a beer. So what, I work in IT..I'm not a politician.

Um, what the heck makes you think they're winning?

[rsilvergun]

The only thing keeping those people alive in Afghanistan is America is too squeamish to murder them all...

Confused!

[theBully]

I understand that Gaddafi is a murderer and criminal. Ok. But if we intervene in Libya should we not intervene in all countries under the same situation?

What stopped the UN to help the Libyan population for the last 40 years? Sorry? Would going there have meant that we're meddling in internal affairs of other countries? What happened to that? Is it not applicable anymore? How about Myanmar(Burma)? Should the UN also go to China? Should we liberate Tibet?

Sorry for all the questions guys but international morale duties are getting me so very confused!

Only 1 solution

[Nyder]

It's obvious we, the United States, want to rule everything. We are trying to force out copyright laws on other countries, we are the "police" force of the world, etc.

It's time we stop playing around and get on our real agenda.

What's that? Total world domination, of course.

We ain't ever leaving Iraq, soon we'll be running Libya. We almost had Eygpt.

You think I'm kidding or trolling? Watch.

The corporation will push congress to stay in those countries because without our force, we can't protect copyright laws.

All I can say is: Libya, do this on your own, or your future will not change. Meet the new boss, just as fucked up as the old boss.

Re:Only 1 solution

[Kevin Fishburne]

Wow. That's some of the dumbest shit I've read on here, which is saying a lot. How that's even a 2 I may never understand. I hate a lot of IP, trademark and copyright law, but I think you've had a few too many tonight my friend!

Sic Semper Tyrannis

[thaig]

As a Zimbabwean I know that nobody's going to "misdirect" one of those 110 tomahawks a bit further south to sort out our problem but I do know that Mugabe considered Gadaffi an ally and has received help from Lybia. It is also clear that Bob has reacted to the situation in the middle east - i.e. he has felt the cold fear that bullies feel when they realise that they are more alone and beginning to stick out.

So from us Southern Africans to the rest of you - we don't have any aeroplanes to send but we are with you in spirit. Kick G's hairy arse as thoroughly as you can for us please. One day when we have sorted out our own home we will be able to help you like we did in WWI and WWII.

Regards,

Tim

Re:Sic Semper Tyrannis

[Kevin Fishburne]

Agreed. See my other comment. I think it's all about putting fear into the hearts of serial murderers by maintaining the momentum of those who "protest too much". Hopefully it will carry over to your slice of life and put a stake in the heart of your respective oppressive ass-hat of a tyrant. It does seem ironic how many killers seem to get a free pass while others meet the winds of Justice. His time will come, so keep up the faith and the pressure (and by pressure I mean targeted, intelligent violence).

Re:Sic Semper Tyrannis

[burisch_research]

As a fellow Zimbabwean, I agree with you 100%. Let's take out all the world's rotten despots one by one, and let's hope that Bob Mugabe is pretty high up on that list.

C.

Woohoo! Greeted as liberators!

[Anonymous Coward]

Third time's the charm, right?

Re:Um, what the heck makes you think they're winni

[dryeo]

The Soviets weren't and they were there a long time as well.

do you remember rwanda?

[circletimessquare]

1994, almost a million civilians butchered, and the UN just stood by and wrote angry letters! useless, in the face of great evil

if qaddafi retakes the entire country, you tell me, in honesty and intelligence, what a man of qaddafi's nature is going to do to those who defied him

you tell the world how to respond, if not with war, then with what, so we do not see another rwanda. i like to wake up in the morning thinking i'm a good person. i can't do that if i witnessed a murder, or a rape, and did nothing to prevent it or call the police. the same with the world, or anyone else with a human conscience, aware of what is going in libya right now

do you consider yourself a person with a conscience? i really wonder. about people who are so averse to war they will not even engage in it to prevent genocides

taking a human life is a very bad thing. taking a human life that is about to take the lives of many innocents is an unfortunate, but necessary thing

those whose only opinion on war is "never" must be people with very little understanding of reality or human nature. of course war is necessary some times: wake the fuck up. and of course it is unfortunate, at all times. please grow up. if you continue to think war is always something that can be avoided, you're just foolish about human nature and the reality of the world you live in. get out of your damn ivory tower of ignorance and try to understand reality, or please stop making pronouncements from on yonder tower, sealed off from reality, as if an opinion formed in a vacuum apart from the reality of humanity is supposed to mean anything. your empty headed platitudes about war are useless

and of course, people will hear the words i just wrote, and accuse me of being a warmonger. *sigh* completely deaf, completely dumb

Re:do you remember rwanda?

[countertrolling]

By your reasoning we should occupy the whole continent. You don't know half the violence that goes on throughout. Without its strategic interest, we would let Libya rot, just like your Rwanda there. So save it.. in fact shitcan it.

God! I just can't believe how this is going down like all the other bullshit.. It's like you're literally entranced. And the arguments you throw up are just as scary as the fiction novels. It's even weirder when you consider the number of times I've seen this movie. This is truly a fascinating and notable event.

Re:do you remember rwanda?

[countertrolling]

Sorry, but to answer your question: do you remember rwanda?

No, I wasn't there. We're you?

Re:do you remember rwanda?

[10Ghz]

By your reasoning we should occupy the whole continent. You don't know half the violence that goes on throughout.

So, is your argument basically that if we (meaning the West) doesn't actively oppose every single massacre out there, or actively oppose every single dictator there is, we should not do so at all? Either we do everything everywhere, or we do nothing at all?

What would you do if West did nothing in Libya, and it resulted in massacre of thousands?

Re:do you remember rwanda?

[countertrolling]

It's a sham. And you fell for it... You are entranced.. There's no getting through the blockade you put up.

Re:do you remember rwanda?

[10Ghz]

So you have no answer to the direct question I asked?, so you just pull the "you are just brainwashed"-argument? OK, thanks for playing.

Re:do you remember rwanda?

[countertrolling]

Your question is bullshit.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

It's not a myth

[unassimilatible]

Most intelligence agencies, were convinced Saddam had WMD's or was trying to get them. There were also Al Qaeda links, and of course is attempts to buy yellowcake from Niger. Whether or not they thought he was worth deposing over it was another matter.

Re:It's not a myth

[sznupi]

Yes, keep remembering those few which were "fooled"... And don't forget Poland. (or Blix, OTOH)

What Al Qaeda links? (links? ;) (html ones)) More than with Saudi Arabia, our "ally"? You mean yellowcake document forgeries?

A 2-Pronged Response Needed

[Anonymous Coward]

Barak-O-Vision has gladly put every citizen of the U.S.A. at risk to appease the psychotic longings of French PM Sarkozy to re-establish French Colonialism again in Africa.

BOV did this under the preciption that US involvment would give training to US forces in batteling civilanz as BOV and the Pentagon Generals are planning a siege on US cities in 2012 prior to elections.

To counter the Blood Thurst of Barak-O-Vision, and "Gal=Pal" HillyBilly Clinton, a 2-pronged rear-gard offinsive is called for:

1) cyberattach on US Dept. of Treasury to disable and dilute moneyary assest of the US and degrade world-wide bond standings ... bankrupt the US. This is necessary to deprive Barak-O-Vision of "war money."

2) negociate with Russia for a first strike on US Stratigic Forces. This is necessary to deprive Barak-O-Vision of Power. A first strike now would also deprive the Penagon Generals of "Assets for Blackmail."

Being rendered moot, the U.S.A. would have to capitulate to War Crimes Trials featuring Luminaries such as George Walker Bush, Richard Chaney, Condilissa Rice and of course Barak-O-Vision and HillyBilly Clinton herself.

What a Theater of the Absurd Awaits.

--308

The ratio.....

[Anonymous Coward]

110 missiles hit 20 targets?? Ummm..... ??

How is willful ignorance insightful?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Insightful"? Only if you are too busy to do ten minutes of research before reaching a conclusion based on blatant, and utterly mundane and predictable, war propaganda. Libya is not having a pro-democracy civil uprising, it is having an armed rebellion that was kicked off by two or three days of made-for-TV demonstrations. The insurgent campaign was planned, funded, and prepared months in advance. Libya is in a state of civil war, and our "humanitarian mission" is to back the side that can deliver oil fields under U.S. "protection".

Now we proceed to slaughter tens or hundreds of thousands of Libyans, some for the crime of being in their nation's military service, some for the crime of being non-human ragheads in the eyes of "insightful" Americans.

Tainted by the UN

[readin]

I'm not sure which bothers me more, that we're going in so late (perhaps too late to ensure Quadaffi's removal) or that we're going in after the UN approved it. Why did we wait for the operation to be tainted with the UN's morally handicapped participation?

Re:Tainted by the UN

[Anonymous Coward]

Cos it is polite to get two countries with masses of nuclear weapons pointed at you to grudgingly agree not to make too big a deal about what you are doing?

the bottom line

[Kevin Fishburne]

Not that I know what I'm talking about, but in my limited understanding I'm betting that:

1) Most people don't like the regime in Libya. Not a big deal, who really does like their own or others' regimes?

2) There's not much to lose as no ground forces are currently being introduced.

3) Libya's military is horrid shit; no problem throwing a wrench into their gears to let a new populist government be formed.

4) This is something that most nations have wanted for a long time, considering Gaddafi's history.

5) The fact that the usual suspects who vote "NO" on military interventions abstained rather than voting "NO" shows that even they are tired of Gaddaffi's bullshit.

6) The UN strategy is to preserve the momentum of oppressed middle-eastern people's revolutions by taking away Gaddafi's looming WIN. He was going to win, now he's going to get hanged. Momentum preserved, on to next intervention if necessary.

I'm no expert; in fact I know shit. But I hope this all works out well. I am AMAZED that the UN voted yes and is actually doing something. I expected the opposite; for Gaddafi to kill every last protester, and for the overall momentum of revolution to slow and finally die with modest but incomplete success. I'm excited to see that hope is still alive over there. I am just sad that, as usual, so many innocent people have to die for the cause of freedom. Death is forever, but freedom is not.

Why the hell wouldn't they want us there?

[objectdisoriented]

Just look at Iraq. We made it a veritable eden.

I bet they'll greet us dancing in the streets.
.

double standards

[im just cannonfodder]

Will the US now bomb Israel toï force them to comply with the hundreds of UN resolutions that Israel is in violation of?,

OFC not as the USA funds & veto's (blocks) all intervention at stopping Israel's illegal occupation, illegal constructions, genocide, torture, assassinations...

what's the difference between Yemen, Bahrain & lybia?

two of them have pro USA puppets & are allowed to murder civilians...

Re:double standards

[amorsen]

We do not do enough, but we can still applaud that we are actually doing something.

Re:double standards

[shutdown -p now]

Will the US now bomb Israel toï force them to comply with the hundreds of UN resolutions that Israel is in violation of?

Depends. Is there a UNSC resolution authorizing the use of military force against Israel? There was one for Libya.

what's the difference between Yemen, Bahrain & lybia?

One of those doesn't exist.

If you mean Libya, then the difference is that it has an ongoing country-wide armed uprising (not simply street protests) for almost a month now, and government has been using artillery (incl. heavy naval artillery) and bombers to suppress it.

Re:double standards

[im just cannonfodder]

Well we (USA, UK) fund the genocide of Palestinians and veto any action to stop illegal war crimes, we fund brutal dictatorships like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Bahrain, if thats what you mean!

Re:double standards

[im just cannonfodder]

Will the US now bomb Israel toà force them to comply with the hundreds of UN resolutions that Israel is in violation of

Depends. Is there a UNSC resolution authorizing the use of military force against Israel? There was one for Libya.

The problem with this is the USA, whom acts as the peace broker, keeps blocking any attempts for action by virtually the rest of the world, while supplying arms to Israel, paid for by the USA tax payer, recently a package of $30 was awarded.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/9418922.stm

what's the difference between Yemen, Bahrain & lybia?

One of those doesn't exist.

sry for the typo, well imagine if a civil war started in the USA, aimed at removing the war criminals bush & obama, whom both have torturer/d and murder/ed innocent ppl happened, would the government step down or send out the police and national guard as soon as the protesters became heavily armed?

Re:double standards

[amorsen]

So much more reason to applaud when we happen to be on the right side. Otherwise it just gets too depressing.

110 Tomahawks = $110M

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope each target was worth $1M...

And 50 year later...

[aepervius]

And years later , citizen which were basically not involved continue the prejudicied insulting. Very mature. Such people should insult de gaulle not the french. Otherwise everybody HATING the American folk because of G W Bush are having fully acceptable behavior. Do I trhink so ? No. But this is the logical conclusion of the french bashing by the US : hating the folk for (long dead) leader action are acceptable.

Killing people.

[Alex Belits]

I hope, glorious American (and French, and Saudi) patriots realize that those "not an invasion" attacks most likely already killed more people in Libya than Gaddafi ever could. But that's OK, those dead people are "wrong", and should be replaced by American puppets, religious nuts or a combination of the above. Surely, Libyans don't deserve living under "dictator" who is merely weird, they must be punished for their brown skins by a life under colonial powers and Muslim fundamentalists just like equally deserving population of Iran was. Right?

This is completely disgusting, and I have no words to describe it that would work on people who still can't remove their military from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Re:Killing people.

[drinkypoo]

I hope, glorious American (and French, and Saudi) patriots realize that those "not an invasion" attacks most likely already killed more people in Libya than Gaddafi ever could.

I know that when I hear "cruise missile" I think "collateral damage"... and lots of it.

This is completely disgusting, and I have no words to describe it that would work on people who still can't remove their military from Iraq and Afghanistan.

There is no can't, there is only won't. The majority of the people don't care and there's no point in grabbing my torch and pitchfork as long as that is true. Many americans did vote for Obama on the basis of withdrawal. Those people are fucking stupid, not morally bankrupt.

Re:Killing people.

[ErikZ]

They're not stupid. They made a logical (and emotional) choice when they were presented the issues from the Media.

You would have to be into Politics to know that Obama hadn't much experience under his belt. I didn't vote for him, but after he won I had hoped he would rise to the challenge.

Re:Killing people.

[drinkypoo]

They're not stupid. They made a logical (and emotional) choice when they were presented the issues from the Media.

At the point at which you're waiting for The Media to present the issues to you, you have already decided not to make a logical choice. Emotional is right, though.

You would have to be into Politics to know that Obama hadn't much experience under his belt. I didn't vote for him, but after he won I had hoped he would rise to the challenge.

You don't have to be "into Politics" to know that Obama is just more of the same as we've had. He hasn't kept even the promises he could keep.

Priorities

[mangu]

Why are they not demanding the bombardment of Bahrain military, or better, Saudi Arabia military?

Because, ruthless as the Saudi regime is, Gaddafi has imposed a new level of ruthlessness.

There has never existed such mass protests in Saudi Arabia as there has been in Libya in the last few weeks, and the Saudi government has never resorted to mass murder of its citizens.

Re:Priorities

[sznupi]

In grander picture, I'm not even sure if he can be called "new level of ruthlessness", sadly... (regarding humanity)

For one example: Indonesian purges of the 60s + East Timor (making it much more recent) - quite possibly at least a million deaths.
Oh, wait, that was done by the "good guys" & to the "bad guys"; with our direct support, sympathy & admiration, even lists of names provided. Nvm then, carry on.

Confessions of an Economic Hit Man

[luk3Z]

Check this video "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" and you will know how USA spread "pseudo-democracy".

UN Intervention Begins In Libya

[tokul]

In other words multinational force supports one of the sides in power struggle in independent country.

One thing you forget

[SmallFurryCreature]

How willing is his army to be slaughtered by far superior western forces? Iraq was plenty willing to face Kuwait. Once the US came onto the scene the soldiers didn't know how fast to run. In fact, there are currently some reports of soldiers changing sides. They might take this turn of events as a way to save their own lives. Wouldn't want to be a government soldier when the rebels win.

Ad for whether it should have been done earlier. Not so long ago Muslims where saying that the killing of Muslims by Muslims was Muslim business and the civilized world should stay out. Some of the Muslims (arab legaue) changed their tone, meaning that no longer can it be seen as a pure western (kolonialism) action. Jordan might only bring a handful of planes but they will be Arab planes flown by (presumably) muslims fighting muslims who are killing muslims. THAT is a HUGE change in the region.

Westerners killing Muslims is bad. An allied force saving Muslim civilians from a universally denounced madmen, that is good. Early this month, the world wasn't ready. Lets hope this time it is.

Let us not forget that the world has practically no experience with doing this right. I am excited to be alive to see the changes in Egypt and other countries but geez god, this could so easily go very very wrong. Most of North Africa is in an uproar and the move of Saudia Arabia into Bahrein is scary as hell. This could easily result in a mass war between Muslim factions and slaughter on a scale unseen in... well quite a few years sadly. God we human beings suck.

Re:One thing you forget

[ThunderBird89]

Khaddaffi's forces do not have to fight the western army, they just need to stay alive long enough to suppress the rebels, so that Khaddaffi can claim that the intervention has become baseless, therefore illegitimate. At that point, the UN HAS to withdraw. So they need to kick his ass while the rebels can hold out to give them grounds for being there.

Apart from that, you're right: humans are bastards. And peace-building has a spotty record, but there are some wins (Yugoslavia, for example).

Funny

[SmallFurryCreature]

In WW2, there were a lot of french people in Great Brittain and some have memories of wanting to pay in say a restaurant and being told "the bill has been paid" referring to the French soldiers protecting the British retreat at Dunkirk.

Now cowardly comedians who never fought for anything and would shit themselves if asked to defend their country claim the French are cowards.

But then we have taken coward actors over real heroes for a long time.

Re:Funny

[Anonymous Coward]

Not just that, it's hypocritical of members of the American public to criticise the French military.

America's military record since World War II is arguably worse than Frances, France at least had success in for example Algeria, but the US has failed to achieve it's goals in most military ventures it's gone into- Korea ended in stalemate, Vietnam was an epic failure, Lebanon and Somalia ended up in the US running with it's tail between it's legs, Iraq 1 failed to remove Saddam, Afghanistan has been a long hard fight with no end in sight yet, Iraq 2 went horrendously badly and certainly can't have been said to have won.

I'm British and we have a long history of rivalry with the French, but personally, going by each nation's military history, and looking at the amount of civilian casualties and friendly fire incidents the Americans cause I know I'd feel much more confident standing side by side with the French than the Americans. The French do at least have some respect for civilians and allies and a will to avoid these kinds of casualties, and France does at least have a much better track record of actually fighting wars it can win, and winning wars it fights than America does. America would do well to learn that not every war need be fought, and those that must be fought should be fought intelligently, and not simply with brute force. If Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan taught us anything it's that brute force wont necessarily win a war for you.

America, particularly those afformentioned "comedians" would be well placed to remember France didn't go into Iraq with them not because they were cowards, but because France knew the WMD claims were full of shit, and because they knew it was a bad idea. I only wish my government had been as smart, because it turned out the French were right, and America, and Britain, were wrong.

THat his name is NOT Connor MacLeod?

[denzacar]

For the fourth time since Vietnam, I am living through the exact same scenario as your responses show today.

I think that the clue lies somewhere in those highlighted words there.

UN : sourcing your warcrimes worldwide !

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

Absolutely! Before the UN or anybody else intervenes, there should be some clear sign that Absolutely!

Given that the UN has publicly comitted more genocides than any other organization in history, I'd advocate violently keeping UN bastards out of everything.

Also, it's the same organization as the "League of nations". It's not often said exactly which organization put Germany in such a position that almost the entire population supported Hitler, but that organization would be the League of nations. Also the League of nations was the organization caused Poland's military to demobilize DURING Hitler's attack, "to allow for peace".

These organizations do not have anything at heart except the delusions of the politicians leading them (first amongst those delusions : that any UN politician, even low-level, should have a wage that Goldman Sach's CEO would be ashamed of)

People should be defended from UN intervention. Because, frankly, if the Libyans knew what they're getting into, they'd put Qadhafi back and give him a raise. Voluntarily. Because it's a lot better than the alternative.

Let's just review :

IAEA - Because pakistan doesn't yet have hydrogen bombs. Oh and pakistan won't help Iran (the one smart decision in a forest of lunatic, delusional decisions that border on warcrimes), so someone else will have to give them the bomb.
IMF - Because the UN does not yet control the money of every state
UNRWA - Because, let's face it, palestinians might finish what hitler started, wouldn't that be great
UNICEF - Giving money to dictators, but ONLY if they torture children
WIPO - You thought the DMCA was bad ? Enter this in google
UNAIDS - because blacks, frankly, deserve to die (and because agents of this agency themselves are the source of the disease in several provinces)
UN security council - Securing your oil supply -and our politician's superiority feelings- through human rights violations, rape, and genocide. Worldwide
UNESCO - Talibanizing your cultural heritage (you'd think an organization like would actually have restored or maintained even a single monument, right ?)
ILO - Ensuring adequate supplies of young girls to clean politician's houses at a wage low enough to ensure they're open to making something on the side (I know an ILO politician. Sadly. He likes to have a young girl as a cleaning lady, one that's illegal in the country, and yells at her publicly. So does his wife. To the point that his family defends the cleaner physically from him. He's working on the "child labour" issue, now for 20 years). He claims this is nothing strange. He may be right.
-oh and-
UN inspections didn't find ANY chemical weapons. Only dead bodies killed with sarin gas. That *obviously* means Iraq never had any chemical weapons. Too bad Saddam can't teach us how to fire non-existent weapons at our enemies. Let's face it, we could halve our military budget with that trick ...

People should be protected from the atrocity that is the UN. Why anyone even associates with these assholes is beyond me.

Re:UN : sourcing your warcrimes worldwide !

[ladoga]

Let's just review :...

Please get back under the bridge and shut up.

Re:UN : sourcing your warcrimes worldwide !

[Sarten-X]

Connecting facts to those statements requires logical leaps that would impress Evil Knievel.

First, the "genocide" links don't actually talk about genocide. Two discuss alleged rape by UN peacekeepers, which has already been acknowledged as a problem by the UN, which primarily is the result of countries themselves picking which soldiers serve the UN missions. The Democratic Republic of Congo wants to torment its own people, so it sends its worst soldiers to the UN-controlled areas. That's hardly the result of any incompetence within the UN.

The other link goes to a page discussing the Congo Crisis, which conveniently makes the logical leaps for you. Long story short, the UN had worked out a treaty to set the Congo free from Belgian control, and made the first steps toward that goal. Then a political leader, Moise Tshombe, used the instability to split off his own country under false pretenses. When it became clear that Tshombe would not follow the arranged agreements, instead opting to promote civil war, the UN intervened. Tshombe waged war against the UN, instead.

Interestingly, this escalation couldn't have happened under the League of Nations, which you also don't like. The LoN could only issue sanctions, and those had to be passed in unanimous agreement by the members. One of the League's primary goals was the near-complete disarmament of the world, with little regard for things like "safety". Poland was worried about German invasion before Hitler even came to power, so followed the disarmament procedures as little as possible. Poland didn't want to disarm, so Germany opposed as well, fearing an attack from Poland in retribution for WWI. The League of Nations was also biased from the start, being mainly comprised of the victors of WWI. Germans perceived this as a global threat against them, which is how Hitler was able to rise to power on a promise to restore Germany's reputation. It's wasn't the League' fault, and the United Nations is a different beast, generally unbiased and actually capable of being effective.

These organizations have continually demonstrated interest in opening a forum for international discussion, backed by force as needed, and generally funded by member governments and private donations. The highest salary in the UN is roughly $200,000. Lloyd Blankfein had a base salary of three times that much, plus other bonuses.

If the Libyans knew what they were getting into, they'd hope that somebody would stop their own military from attacking them.

Let's just review:

IAEA - Because pakistan doesn't yet have hydrogen bombs. Oh and pakistan won't help Iran (the one smart decision in a forest of lunatic, delusional decisions that border on warcrimes), so someone else will have to give them the bomb.

...Because nuclear power reactors are related to nuclear weapons only in that they both use fission, so a nuclear power plant built with IAEA help can be sure to actually be a nuclear power plant, and not a uranium-consuming munitions factory.

IMF - Because the UN does not yet control the money of every state

...Because now and then, developing countries needs a loan, and the IMF is there to provide that loan in exchange for a promise of adherence to financial best practices. Those practices haven't always worked out, but that's why the idea of "best practices" is always changing.

UNRWA - Because, let's face it, palestinians might finish what hitler started, wouldn't that be great

...Because people affected by war need help, and since Palestine isn't universally recognized as a state, these people

Re:UN : sourcing your warcrimes worldwide !

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

First, the "genocide" links don't actually talk about genocide. Two discuss alleged rape by UN peacekeepers, which has already been acknowledged as a problem by the UN, which primarily is the result of countries themselves picking which soldiers serve the UN missions. The Democratic Republic of Congo wants to torment its own people, so it sends its worst soldiers to the UN-controlled areas. That's hardly the result of any incompetence within the UN.

First, the links DO talk about soldiers firing into crowds, killing off entire villages, ...

But my main point is simple :
The chain of command is responsible for the actions of the soldiers - obviously. Why does the UN get a free pass from all warcrimes precedents from you (ie. any soldier not directly AWOL, any action comitted by said soldier - even if it's a breach of discipline - is the fault of the chain of command). Nobody claims with a straight face that, Aushwitz was the result of individual soldier's actions, even though there never were direct orders for most (almost all, in fact) atrocities. Yet in the case of the UN, you consider them innocent for exactly this reason.

I might -perhaps- be convinced that there is shared responsability. Like 50% Morocco - 50% UN (and 50% nepal - 50% un, and 50% france 50% UN, and so on). But the UN obviously doesn't get a free pass on controlling their own soldiers.

Re:Um, what the heck makes you think they're winni

[sznupi]

So the Soviets weren't so bad after all? (plus it's not an American operation, it's a UN-sanctioned NATO one; but hey, if that's what keeps away crimes against humanity...)

US overstepping No Fly Zone concept

[danbuter]

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/03/20/video-us-launches-stealth-bombers-more-than-100-cruise-missiles-against-libya/ Surprise! Now we are also using fighter to attack ground troops.

What comes after Libya?

[Anonymous Coward]

Obama said: 'Today we are part of a broad coalition. We are answering the calls of a threatened people. And we are acting in the interests of the United States and the world.'

Here's my question: Are we only doing Libya, or are we doing all the countries that have calls of a threatened people? Because there's more than one.

If you say "Just Libya", then why not go after the rest? Where does it end?
If you say "All of them", then our invasion of Iraq was justified because those people called out too.

Before someone mods stoev insightful

[AP31R0N]

Germany is obligated by its constitution to stay home and is brown water. BraZil, China and India are brown water navies and couldn't if they wanted. They simply can't participate. i wouldn't want China there.

Are you using some new meaning of bankrupt?

Stupid? Are you such a partisan sheep/blame America firster that can't see that Qaddafi is a sick evil fuck killing his own people to stay in power? That Libya is not Egypt? That the people need help? That NOT helping the civilians is morally the same as helping Qaddafi?

don't matter to me...

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't mind getting deployed to libya. get some more notches on my rifle. atleast they ain't got IEDs out there.

Simple solution

[currently_awake]

If the US doesn't want to be the world's police force, then LET someone else do it. The reason the US helped Iran during the Iran/Iraq war is because they wanted both countries to lose, and thereby prevent any country from becoming a major regional power capable of opposing the USA. And they've done the same in every other region of the world. The US has actively prevented any other country from taking on the role of world cop.

Bigger question

[currently_awake]

Ghadaffi was an american regional ally, so why are they openly opposing him? The other (american allied) despots can't enjoy watching the US betray their ally, i've no doubt that the house of Saud is quite upset over this betrayal, and Bahrain certainly will wonder if they are next. The american government doesn't do things because "It's the right thing" or because "we support democracy", they've shown again and again they only support short term self interest. So why are they intervening here? The only reason I can see is that European allies demanded help to prevent a massive refugee exodus into europe that would have destabilized the EU, leading to economic collapse that would cascade through the world's (and america) economy.

We aren't the world police

[Anonymous Coward]

It's only because of retards such as yourself that we think we are.

Billions of your tax dollars went to this dictatorship for decades and now all of a sudden when they don't cooperate we have 'moral obligations'? Your "moral obligations' are nothing more than illusions.

Congratulations, you've and the rest of "America" (Kind of hard to call people Americans when they've committed so much treason against the constitution) have been brain washed by the military industrial complex and the CIA.

coalition building

[sourcerror]

" I'd say, despite the appearances of taking a week or two too long, this is a pretty substantial foreign policy victory for Obama, actually constructing a wide-based coalition to take on Gaddafi."

It seems that the coalition building was done by the French, and the US just jumped on the bandwagon, but even this seems like a big improvement on American foreign affairs.

Reality check

[sourcerror]

Reality check: Libya under Gaddafi's rule was a pro-western country. It cooperated with the war on terror thing and sold us oil, apologized for its earlier wrongdoing etc.

International Brigades?

[plopez]

The resolution, if I understand it correctly, does not authorize ground units. So the thought occurred to me, "Why not organize and send in volunteers from the US, Europe, Australia, etc." Sort of like the International brigades of the Spanish Civil War in the 30's. People with prior military experience could serve as advisers, trainers, or in leadership roles.

As far as I know, it is not illegal in the US if you are not fighting against the US or its allies. It would also show solidarity with the rebels in their struggle against the evil empire. They would not fight for money but for freedom.

It would also counter balance any Jihadist influence. One of the problems in Afghanistan was that the Jihadists showed up and hijacked the fight against The Soviets. International Brigades, including all female brigades, might counter act this.

What do you think?

Finally!

[DarthVain]

I war I can really get behind!

Suicide is always an option.

[Frosty Piss]

It's not at all uncommon for people with small genitals and body oder issues that keep them from getting laid, to lash out on the Internet in the manner that you have. You comment clearly indicates that therapy has *not* helped you. Suicide is always an option.