Canadian Firm Gave Libyan Rebels Surveillance Drone

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Canadian Firm Gave Libyan Rebels Surveillance Drone

Posted by Unknown on Tuesday August 23, 2011 @09:07AM from the we're-watching-you dept.

Joining the posted submitter club, suasfan22 writes with a bit in Wired about the use of a drone by Libyan Rebels. From the article: "The Libyan revolutionaries are more of a band of enthusiastic amateurs than experienced soldiers. But it turns out the rebels have the kind of weaponry usually possessed by advanced militaries: their very own drone. Aeryon Labs, a Canadian defense firm, revealed on Tuesday that it had quietly provided the rebel forces with a teeny, tiny surveillance drone, called the Aeryon Scout. Small enough to fit into a backpack, the three-pound, four-rotor robot gave Libyan forces eyes in the sky independent of the Predators, Fire Scout surveillance copters and manned spy planes that NATO flew overhead. Don't worry, it's not armed."

165 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Damn... by AngryDeuce · 2011-08-23 09:08 · Score: 1

Buncha Canadian imperialists!!!
Hell of a way to beta test by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-23 09:10 · Score: 0

Hand it over to a bunch of dudes that strap APC turrets to the back of pickup trucks.
1. Re:Hell of a way to beta test by drnb · 2011-08-23 09:42 · Score: 2
  
  Hand it over to a bunch of dudes that strap APC turrets to the back of pickup trucks.
  I would think that if such guys can use the drone then the design is pretty good.
2. Re:Hell of a way to beta test by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-23 10:19 · Score: 0
  
  I would think that if such guys can use the drone then the design is pretty good.
  Really?
3. Re:Hell of a way to beta test by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-23 10:33 · Score: 0
  
  Are you familiar with the term soldier proof? If the Toyota APC boys can use the drone it seems to have gone beyond soldier proof.
4. Re:Hell of a way to beta test by couchslug · 2011-08-24 01:00 · Score: 1
  
  Not great for traverse, but the elevation probably worked so a "Truck/StuG" cross is a lot better than nothing.
  
  --
  "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Yet... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-23 09:10 · Score: 0

Not Armed...Yet. Given time and duct tape though?
1. Re:Yet... by drnb · 2011-08-23 09:14 · Score: 1
  
  Not Armed...Yet. Given time and duct tape though?
  And sufficient lift, which is probably not available.
2. Re:Yet... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-23 09:19 · Score: 0
  
  Not Armed
  Well, that's the official story anyway.
  
  Given time and duct tape though?
  Forget the duct tape, they probably have a unified drone platform, with the same attachment points and sockets for all kinds of equipment.
3. Re:Yet... by electron+sponge · 2011-08-23 13:25 · Score: 1
  
  Give Red Green some time, he could do it, eh? Canada is funny.
Ya!? by rlanctot · 2011-08-23 09:15 · Score: 0

We're comin with the back bacon and poutine, ya better get ready, eh?
This trend will accelerate... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-23 09:16 · Score: 0

Like many things the movement of technology getting cheaper and easier to use will impact how things like wars unfold in the future. Pretty soon the US's dominance in drones and automated warfare will be countered by adversaries with similar means. I think it's only because the current two wars were against essentially backwards nations that the US has escaped relatively unscathed, but what happens when they start flying their own armed drones?
1. Re:This trend will accelerate... by MakinBacon · 2011-08-23 09:20 · Score: 2
  
  Like many things the movement of technology getting cheaper and easier to use will impact how things like wars unfold in the future. Pretty soon the US's dominance in drones and automated warfare will be countered by adversaries with similar means. I think it's only because the current two wars were against essentially backwards nations that the US has escaped relatively unscathed, but what happens when they start flying their own armed drones?
  That's how military technology works: Somebody invented a spear, so somebody else invented a shield. Then another person made a bow. Fast forward a few thousand years and we have robot planes that blow people to kingdom come before they even see them coming.
  It's inevitable that the rest of the world will get their own version of the drones eventually, so Uncle Sam's just going to have to keep building better weapons like he always does. The entire history of mankind is little more than a massive arms race.
2. Re:This trend will accelerate... by Rik+Rohl · 2011-08-23 10:45 · Score: 2
  
  The entire history of mankind is little more than a massive arms race.
  Well, there's something the human race can be proud of.
3. Re:This trend will accelerate... by ChocNut · 2011-08-23 20:03 · Score: 0
  
  Maybe you Americans should heed this warning: Evil begets evil. Maybe if you didn't invest trillions of dollars you haven't earned into "defensive" technology humanity would have greatly reduced weapons development globally. Nah, keep building those nukes. It's the only way to be sure eh?
Okay can someone explain this to me? by LWATCDR · 2011-08-23 09:17 · Score: 1

How are ground attack missions part of a "No Fly Zone"? And where are the anti-war protestors?
Just wondering if it is okay to make all the strikes you want without the approval of congress as long as it is just with drones?
And was the Libyan government any more evil, corrupt, and dangerous than Iraq?

--
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
1. Re:Okay can someone explain this to me? by h4rr4r · 2011-08-23 09:23 · Score: 1
  
  And was the Libyan government any more evil, corrupt, and dangerous than Iraq?
  Lockerbie bombing.
  So yeah the country that does actual terrorism is worse than the one that was only accused of it.
2. Re:Okay can someone explain this to me? by gQuigs · 2011-08-23 09:27 · Score: 2
  
  How are ground attack missions part of a "No Fly Zone"?
  They aren't. All the attacks are under the "protecting civilians" banner.
  
  And where are the anti-war protestors?
  Tired.
  
  Just wondering if it is okay to make all the strikes you want without the approval of congress as long as it is just with drones?
  AFAIK Congress hasn't undone the "blank check for war" they gave to the president after 9/11.
  
  And was the Libyan government any more evil, corrupt, and dangerous than Iraq?
  Meh.. it's hard to tell anything with the media filters... but they did seem more insane and more actively killing civilians.... (whereas with Iraq, they had already killed a lot of civilians and we did nothing)
3. Re:Okay can someone explain this to me? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-23 09:27 · Score: 0
  
  United States has terror bombed libya countless times in the past.
4. Re:Okay can someone explain this to me? by LWATCDR · 2011-08-23 09:35 · Score: 1
  
  Invasion of Kuwait? Just incase anyone doesn't remember that was 23 years ago and the US bombed them for it.
  I am actually all for getting rid of that government but the way it is being done frankly is in violation of US law IMHO.
  The War Powers Resolution of 1973 says that.
  "The War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war. "
  The current administration says that we have not been involved in hostile actions.
  "The two senior administration lawyers contended that American forces had not been in “hostilities” at least since early April, when NATO took over the responsibility for the no-fly zone and the United States shifted to primarily a supporting role — providing refueling and surveillance to allied warplanes, although remotely piloted drones operated by the United States periodically fire missiles, too."
  Is everyone really okay with this level of following the law? As I said is it okay to do what you want as long as it is with drones? What about cruise missiles then? They are just one way drones.
  Sorry but when you unleash the military one should not play fast an free with the rules. Every i should be dotted and every t should be crossed.
  
  --
  See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
5. Re:Okay can someone explain this to me? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-23 09:36 · Score: 0
  
  This is not about the antagonistic acts of the former regime. This isn't even the about supporting the rebels...
  This is about the oil. Western nations are all too happy to lend their support so that their greedy corporations can get their grubby hands on Libya's oil and other lucrative "reconstruction" contracts.
  -- Ethanol-fueled
6. Re:Okay can someone explain this to me? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-23 09:37 · Score: 0
  
  The only thing to add is there is a small portion of the ground attacks being related to the no fly zone, when instating a no fly zone over a country you have to destroy known anti-aircraft installations and ground troops known to be armed with handheld anti-aircraft weaponry to ensure you have complete superiority over the airspace.
7. Re:Okay can someone explain this to me? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-23 09:39 · Score: 0
  
  If we're looking for evil, corrupt, and dangerous governments, the USA (and other Zionist controlled governments (of which there are many)) doesn't need to look any further than within its own borders.
  The problem isn't where the news says it is, because the news is intended to deceive you. This should be obvious by now.
8. Re:Okay can someone explain this to me? by LWATCDR · 2011-08-23 09:49 · Score: 1
  
  You do not need to take out troops with handheld missiles for a no fly zone. Just keep your aircraft over 5000m and they are not a threat. Think about it, most man portable missiles have a range of only 5km or so and that isn't straight up! If you want make it 6000m just for giggles and you have no worries. Modern air to air missiles will have no problem taking out anything flying below you. You make those strikes only if you are going to do CAS or if you are going to use combat helicopters. Both of which are not part of a no fly zone.
  
  --
  See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
9. Re:Okay can someone explain this to me? by h4rr4r · 2011-08-23 09:50 · Score: 1
  
  Invasion of Kuwait was a war not terrorism. Also it was about control of the oilfield.
10. Re:Okay can someone explain this to me? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-23 09:54 · Score: 0
  
  "How are ground attack missions part of a "No Fly Zone"?"
  The UN resolution was for more than a No Fly Zone. It also specifically allowed protection of civilians. And in the nighttime video shown on that page what do you think was happening? You were seeing Libyan government forces firing artillery at the city of Misrata -- not at a military base, not specifically at opposing army forces, but just shelling the city. Shelling civilians. They did that with artillery and rockets for MONTHS, indiscriminately. All over the city. Hundreds a day sometimes. The UN resolution empowered the NATO forces to stop that shelling, which in a practical sense would mean bombing those artillery pieces and any forces using them in such a manner. The Libyan government always had an option to avoid such an option: stop shelling civilians.
  "And was the Libyan government any more evil, corrupt, and dangerous than Iraq?"
  Probably not, although Libya actually did have chemical weapons and still had a small stockpile that had not yet been destroyed. In Iraq the case was trumped-up charges of weapons of mass destruction that no longer existed and it was not a UN authorized action. In Libya the world was about to witness another Yugoslavia where government tanks, bombers, artillery, and rockets would have been used to shell the city of Benghazi into capitulation, and that would have been only half the massacre that would have resulted once the government forces had control (Ghaddafi has previously inflicted terrible retribution on cities who crossed him).
  War is a terrible thing. But this is one case where the need to intervene was pretty clear-cut. Where people can argue is whether NATO strayed from it's original mandate, but on the other hand, even when Ghaddafi's forces retreated from Benghazi in the face of NATO intervention they didn't exactly stop shelling civilian-filled cities. In fact, they intensified it in many other places, such as Misrata, Zintan, Zawiyah, and many others. Any city that had a popular, civilian uprising they basically surrounded and shelled with tanks, artillery and rockets until the city submitted (which happened in the case of Zintan and Zawiyah, almost in the case of Misrata). Imagine what he would have done if there wasn't a No Fly Zone -- he also would have been bombing the cities with aircraft. He had already started doing that in Benghazi before NATO intervened. At least NATO wasn't indiscriminate when they bombed ground targets, and they weren't dropping unguided bombs intentionally on residential areas filled with civilians. I mean, sheesh, early on some of Ghaddafi's *own*pilots* refused orders to bomb the cities, ejected from their planes or flew elsewhere, and defected to the rebels. This was not some hypothetical risk. It was in progress. That immediacy was why you even had the Arab League supporting intervention.
  As for US politics and authorizing this sort of thing, I think there were serious problems with the way it was done. Obama was foolish to assert executive power over the decision and not get Congressional approval early, and I don't think using drones and eventually acting in a support role excuses the need for approval. But I strongly feel that intervention of some kind was the right decision. It was that or stand by and watch the massacre unfold. Does that set a dangerous precedent for intervention in other conflicts? Maybe. On the other hand, maybe dictators will think twice about ordering their armies to start shooting their own people, and maybe those armies will think twice about following those orders. We'll see.
11. Re:Okay can someone explain this to me? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-23 09:55 · Score: 0
  
  If your planes get shot down by ground based defenses, it's hard to enforce a no fly zone.
  But don't let your bias get in the way of reality.
12. Re:Okay can someone explain this to me? by LWATCDR · 2011-08-23 09:58 · Score: 1
  
  I said dangerous. Not to mention that Iraq did have a nuclear weapons program before the first gulf war and also had massive amounts of chemical weapons. If you want to go on and claim that they where no longer a threat because of the first gulf war I would say that Libya was also no long a threat because the US air strikes and the 20+ years of no terrorist attacks on the US and Gaddafi's dismantling of his nuclear program, promising no more terrorist actions, and dismantling his chemical weapons.
  As I said I really have no problem taking him out with military action. He was a dangerous nut case. The problem I have is with not following the law. And I question the integrity of the "anti-war" movement as anything but partisan at this point.
  
  --
  See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
13. Re:Okay can someone explain this to me? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-23 09:59 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, too bad that we forgave them for that 10 years ago and moved the corporations in. The US/UK can be a fickle bunch at times....
14. Re:Okay can someone explain this to me? by he-sk · 2011-08-23 10:12 · Score: 1
  
  The problem with the War Powers Resolution is that the executive maintains that its unconstitutional and Congress does not have the balls to challenge this view in court.
  
  --
  Free Manning, jail Obama.
15. Re:Okay can someone explain this to me? by element-o.p. · 2011-08-23 10:13 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry but when you unleash the military one should not play fast an [sic] free with the rules. Every i should be dotted and every t should be crossed.
  :thumb_up:
  
  If you can't get Congress to go along with whatever military action it is you want to involve yourself in, you probably have no business being there in the first place.
  
  Don't even get me started on the irony of the current administration wanting to get the U.S. involved in a brand new foreign war when it has still been unable to extricate us from the previous TWO foreign wars that the prior administration got us involved in -- despite campaign promises to do exactly that.
  
  --
  MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
16. Re:Okay can someone explain this to me? by cduffy · 2011-08-23 10:32 · Score: 1
  
  Don't even get me started on the irony of the current administration wanting to get the U.S. involved in a brand new foreign war when it has still been unable to extricate us from the previous TWO foreign wars that the prior administration got us involved in -- despite campaign promises to do exactly that.
  Campaign promises were not to extract ourselves from both wars -- only one of them. Should have listened to the details closer.
17. Re:Okay can someone explain this to me? by element-o.p. · 2011-08-23 10:43 · Score: 1
  
  Campaign promises were not to extract ourselves from both wars -- only one of them.
  'Kay. I stand corrected. From which war did we manage to extricate ourselves?
  
  Should have listened to the details closer.
  Well, maybe. But since I pretty much figured he was lying no matter what he said, there really didn't seem to be much point.
  
  --
  MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
18. Re:Okay can someone explain this to me? by hedwards · 2011-08-23 10:46 · Score: 2
  
  Citation necessary. Using the armed forces to attack is one thing, having a plain clothes operative sneak explosives onto a plane is a completely different matter altogether.
19. Re:Okay can someone explain this to me? by LWATCDR · 2011-08-23 10:53 · Score: 1
  
  And did that happen?
  
  --
  See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
20. Re:Okay can someone explain this to me? by Chris+Burke · 2011-08-23 11:46 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  As I said I really have no problem taking him out with military action. He was a dangerous nut case. The problem I have is with not following the law. And I question the integrity of the "anti-war" movement as anything but partisan at this point.
  Well I can only speak for myself, and I don't consider myself part of the "anti-war movement", but I was (and still am) a vocal critic of the Iraq War.
  If the second Iraq War had been initiated in response to a popular uprising against Saddam and had consisted of advisers and air support instead of 150,000 U.S. troops occupying the country, then I would have been cautiously supportive. Then I would have believed that Iraq was a threat, not to the U.S. which was always ridiculous, but to its own people (and not just in the generic way that living under a dictator is dangerous).
  Of course that ship had already sailed (and then sunk), which is why the Iraqi people weren't as happy to see us as one might have hoped.
  So that, for me, is why the difference in reaction. It's not about partisanship... I also became cautiously pro-Afghan war when it became clear they were taking it seriously. Then Iraq came along and fucked that up besides being a clusterfuck of its own.
  I'm not anti-war, I'm anti-stupid. :)
  
  --
  
  The enemies of Democracy are
21. Re:Okay can someone explain this to me? by mr100percent · 2011-08-23 14:31 · Score: 1
  
  The Left was so used to condemning the Iraq war that they failed to see the important differences.
  Top 10 Myths about the Libya war
22. Re:Okay can someone explain this to me? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-23 19:06 · Score: 0
  
  They aren't part of a no fly zone. NATO countries were actively involved in the war supplying both ground and air support. In the beginning they tried to spin it as a no fly zone that was sanctioned by the U.N to protect civilians. After a while, they weren't even hiding the fact that they were supplying support to the opposition. I think they said that stuff to appease China and Russia - at least until they sold them on the deal. After that the only people who cared were small groups of informed citizens - but does any government that controls public opinion really care about them?
  The anti-war protesters are where they've always been - protesting the wars.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_2011_military_intervention_in_Libya#United_States
  You didn't hear about it because the media didn't make it an issue. If you are in the U.S. the media didn't make it an issue because unlike Iraq, there was no political support for the anti-war protests.
  Let me explain.
  For the Iraq war the democrats jumped on the anti-war bandwagon - not because they really cared but because they could exploit the vote. So because there was political support for the anti-war protests, the protests got media coverage and that coverage helped the Democrats in the presidential election. For the current conflict the only real American political support for the anti-war movement could come from the Republicans as this is the Democrats war. However, after bashing socialists, etc. for decades and because of their support for big military oil the Republicans aren't going to bash any military intervention. Instead, they are going to criticize it for not being tough enough and there isn't going to be much, if any, media coverage of the anti-war protesters. I would imagine similar things happen outside of the U.S., for example most EU nations were sponsors of the Libyan war so they likely sent their media to spin it like they have in the U.S.
23. Re:Okay can someone explain this to me? by dokc · 2011-08-23 20:28 · Score: 1
  
  Citation necessary. Using the armed forces to attack is one thing, having a plain clothes operative sneak explosives onto a plane is a completely different matter altogether.
  Why is that different when innocent people die?
  
  --
  In love, war and slashdot discussions, everything is allowed.
24. Re:Okay can someone explain this to me? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-23 20:29 · Score: 0
  
  Is everyone really okay with this level of following the law?
  Hmm, let me think back...
  I seem to remember several Prominent GOP members who were red in the face that we were not in Libya FAST enough.
  Are you really OK with Congress intentionally NOT authorizing further action simply because they want ammunition in the next election cycle?
  Look, this IS a little bit of a grey area. The definition of "military forces" is not clear- it appears to only apply to uniformed troops as it's never been used to Smack Down a President who sends CIA or other covert Ops into a country for long periods. There's also the issue that the UN is technically in the lead, not us.
  What is important to understand is that Congress does not have any problem with us being involved. They have a problem with "Obama's War" at a stage where it's likely to be wrapped up (for us, anyhow) within a year, while TWO of "Bush's Wars" are still going strong. And they're planning on using this as ammo in the election, and you can bet your ass if Obama wins the next election there will be calls for Impeachment. They're intentionally using the Libyan People's Revolution as their "Ace in the Hole" in case he stays in the White House.
  Now, I might have a problem with the fact the Cover Sheet wasn't put on the TPS Reports except for two things:
  1. The Libyan People wanted us to send help. They are happy with the level of help we've sent, generally, the only criticism being it could have been a little quicker.
  2. Congress wants us there, even though they're holding out on passing a resolution because of election politics.
25. Re:Okay can someone explain this to me? by dokc · 2011-08-23 20:29 · Score: 1
  
  Invasion of Kuwait was a war not terrorism. Also it was about control of the oilfield.
  This is also about control of the oilfields.
  
  --
  In love, war and slashdot discussions, everything is allowed.
26. Re:Okay can someone explain this to me? by couchslug · 2011-08-24 01:05 · Score: 1
  
  None of those considerations matter in big boy politics.
  Anti-war protestors don't oppose war on principle because opposing war on principle is pretty stupid even for hippies.
  Qaddafi pissed of enough people on both sides of the political spectrum that taking him out made sense. Oil is WELL worth war and bloodshed to obtain. There is enough to make the Libyan people prosperous, perhaps help reverse emigration from Libya (good for the EU), and a prosperous Libya can be a useful regional example.
  As for Congress approving a little military force, so what? Americans love war, they just hate LOSING them. The moral to that story is "don't lose".
  
  --
  "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
27. Re:Okay can someone explain this to me? by jackbird · 2011-08-24 01:30 · Score: 1
  
  Not to mention that Iraq did have a nuclear weapons program before the first gulf war
  
  Disingenuous at best. The destruction of their reactor by the Israelis in 1982 was indeed "before the first gulf war," but long enough before that it doesn't really count. After that, they had amibitions, but no real progress.
28. Re:Okay can someone explain this to me? by cduffy · 2011-08-24 02:03 · Score: 1
  
  'Kay. I stand corrected. From which war did we manage to extricate ourselves?
  I think you're reading something into my statement which wasn't actually said.
29. Re:Okay can someone explain this to me? by FhnuZoag · 2011-08-24 03:49 · Score: 2
  
  It's not the left. It's just the axis of dumbasses. There's plenty of leftwingers (myself included) that opposed Iraq, want a withdrawal from Afghanistan, and still support this intervention.
30. Re:Okay can someone explain this to me? by canadian_right · 2011-08-24 04:09 · Score: 1
  
  The Libyan government responded to peaceful mass protests with guns. Shooting unarmed protesters puts you in the evil camp. The NATA resolution was not just a no fly zone. The actual language was extremely broad:
  Key points The resolution, adopted under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter: demands the immediate establishment of a ceasefire and a complete end to violence and all attacks against, and abuses of, civilians; imposes a no-fly zone over Libya; authorises all necessary means to protect civilians and civilian-populated areas, except for a "foreign occupation force"; strengthens the arms embargo and particularly action against mercenaries, by allowing for forcible inspections of ships and planes; imposes a ban on all Libyan-designated flights; imposes an asset freeze on assets owned by the Libyan authorities, and reaffirms that such assets should be used for the benefit of the Libyan people; extends the travel ban and assets freeze of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1970 to a number of additional individuals and Libyan entities; establishes a panel of experts to monitor and promote sanctions implementation.
  I wonder if NATA will turn its attention to Syria after Libya winds down.
  
  --
  Anarchists never rule
31. Re:Okay can someone explain this to me? by element-o.p. · 2011-08-24 06:41 · Score: 1
  
  Can you sum up your point, then? I observed that it seems rather ironic to me that the same guy who made such a big deal out of getting us out of war in the Middle East is now trying to weasel around the War Powers Act by engaging us in yet another Middle East country without seeking Congressional approval, a formality which even Bush -- as much as I despise him -- recognized he needed. I fail to see how anything in this thread so far refutes that point. It's possible I'm just being dense -- it happens, sometimes -- and if so, I would really appreciate the enlightenment.
  
  --
  MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
32. Re:Okay can someone explain this to me? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-24 08:15 · Score: 0
  
  Lockerbie bombing was Iran. Don't be fooled. Besides, Reagan bombed Libya FIRST and killed Qadhafy's daughter. So if anything, US is the aggressor and that was a retaliation.
33. Re:Okay can someone explain this to me? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-24 08:26 · Score: 0
  
  The US was the one who gave Saddam the "green light" to invade Kuwait, and then stabbed him in the back. This was after building him up and arming him to use advanced weaponry against the Iranians. This meddling has to stop.
34. Re:Okay can someone explain this to me? by cduffy · 2011-08-24 11:05 · Score: 1
  
  If I wanted to make a point, I would have made a point, and it would have been explicit enough to be readily understandable.
  Instead, I was doing nothing more than correcting a common misconception -- one even frequently seen among the President's supporters, who all too often took "change" to mean whatever they wanted to hear rather than listening to the details (which were spelled out for those paying attention).
  Obama was very clear when on the campaign trail (and in statements prior to the campaign) that he thought the war in Afghanistan was important and should be escalated -- and that it would have been prosecuted more effectively were it not for the unnecessary and expensive distraction posed by the war in Iraq.
  Beyond this correction, I make (and intend) no larger statement or point.
35. Re:Okay can someone explain this to me? by cduffy · 2011-08-25 04:06 · Score: 1
  
  See other post.
Why does it even matter? by F69631 · 2011-08-23 09:29 · Score: 2

It is a piece of equipment that has been designed to help in a military operation. Why does it matter whether it is in itself armed or whether it "just" helps armed troops in attacking the other side more efficiently? When we get tangled up to such semantic differences, we see ridiculous claims about the newest military technology saving lives or stuff like that.
1. Re:Why does it even matter? by Duradin · 2011-08-23 09:48 · Score: 1
  
  So dropping one guided munition isn't saving lives compared to carpet bombing a vast area to assure one hit?
2. Re:Why does it even matter? by ZankerH · 2011-08-23 10:03 · Score: 2
  
  No, it isn't. Just because you're killing less people doesn't mean you're saving lives.
3. Re:Why does it even matter? by JonySuede · 2011-08-23 10:45 · Score: 1
  
  no you are wasting less lives but are still wasting them....
  
  --
  Jehovah be praised, Oracle was not selected
4. Re:Why does it even matter? by darkmeridian · 2011-08-24 02:22 · Score: 1
  
  You're saving the lives of your own soldiers. I guess we shouldn't bother to fight any wars at all. We should have just let Hitler take over the Europe. We should have let Osama Bin Laden get away. We should have let Saddam Hussein take away Kuwait. Israel should let the Palestinians rocket them into submission.
  
  --
  A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
5. Re:Why does it even matter? by canadian_right · 2011-08-24 04:03 · Score: 1
  
  If carpet bombing kills 100 people, and a targeted strike kills 10 then the targeted strike saves 90 lives.
  Starting wars is bad. If you can reduce collateral damage that is less bad. Not starting the war in the first place saves more lives, but the Libyan rebels did not start the war, the Libyan government did.
  
  --
  Anarchists never rule
6. Re:Why does it even matter? by Stiletto · 2011-08-24 05:48 · Score: 1
  
  Wow, that's some messed up logic.
  So, if I was planning on chopping my hand off, and instead decided to chop off just my pinky finger, does that mean I saved four fingers??
Confusion in write-up? What's up Slashdot? by bogaboga · 2011-08-23 09:29 · Score: 1

...Aeryon Labs, a Canadian defense firm, revealed on Tuesday that it had quietly provided the rebel forces with a teeny, tiny surveillance drone, called the Aeryon Scout.

This means the rebel forces got some hardware, right?

Small enough to fit into a backpack, the three-pound, four-rotor robot gave Libyan forces eyes in the sky independent of the Predators...(emphasis mine)
With this, my understanding then shifts to the fact that the Libyan government forces got "eyes in the sky" with this "hardware donation".
And here's why: The Libyan forces up until a few hours ago, referred to Libyan Government forces led by Mr. Gaddafi. Right?
I am confused. Or am I getting old?
1. Re:Confusion in write-up? What's up Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-23 10:04 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, you're confused. These people are Libyan (as in nationality). They're also forces (they're fighting). That fact that they are rebels doesn't make them not Libyans.
2. Re:Confusion in write-up? What's up Slashdot? by hedwards · 2011-08-23 10:58 · Score: 1
  
  I think at this point we're recognizing the rebels as the legitimate governing power of the Libyan people. And yes, these things do get confusing, civil wars tend to get that way.
3. Re:Confusion in write-up? What's up Slashdot? by Em+Adespoton · 2011-08-23 11:37 · Score: 1
  
  Both the government forces and the rebel forces are Libyan forces; the robot was given to the rebel Libyan forces. The article already stated that, so didn't bother to qualify the second time around, due to context.
  Either that, or the company decided to play fair, and gave one each to the government and rebels....
Testing Ground? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-23 09:30 · Score: 1

While I have no problem with supporting democracy, I'm worried if these conflict zones are becoming testing grounds for arms manufacturers. Maybe it's just me, the blunt sales pitch on the video is a little shameless.
Eeh ?! Eeeeh !?!?!? EEEEEHHH !?!?!?! by unity100 · 2011-08-23 09:32 · Score: 1

mateys ?!?!

--
Read radical news here
good or bad? by roman_mir · 2011-08-23 09:34 · Score: 1

It's good for the rebels, bad for the regime. Are we supposed to be cheerleaders? Is this story about technology or about the Libyan civil war?
Great tool by the way.
Does anybody think it's a good idea to meddle with internal conflicts of other nations?

--
You can't handle the truth.
1. Re:good or bad? by geekoid · 2011-08-23 09:54 · Score: 1
  
  Yes. Just be smart.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
2. Re:good or bad? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-23 09:59 · Score: 0
  
  Do you not think it's a good idea? If not, what makes the "sovereignty" of a tyrannical state so important in your eyes?
3. Re:good or bad? by roman_mir · 2011-08-23 10:05 · Score: 1
  
  well, this is just a cheap toy, but what's so smart about meddling with other people's affairs? Who made you world's police?
  America, fuck yeah?
  
  --
  You can't handle the truth.
4. Re:good or bad? by roman_mir · 2011-08-23 10:10 · Score: 1
  
  The people of the country have to decide what to do, they have decided. But it's an internal affair of that country, a civil war. What I normally see is that all this help by others is normally done so that something can be had back from the country, with which they are meddling, be it becoming IMF debtor or some special contracts and/or then later affecting the new government in a way, to promote interests of those 'helping' hands, but which are not in the best interests of the people of that country.
  They have to sort it out themselves and come to a conclusion that they find appropriate, not something others would want to impose on them.
  
  --
  You can't handle the truth.
5. Re:good or bad? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-23 10:23 · Score: 0
  
  Do you not think it's a good idea? If not, what makes the "sovereignty" of a tyrannical state so important in your eyes?
  Who determines whether a state is tyrannical? Do you want to be killed because the state you live in is found to be tyrannical? What if your state is accused of having WMDs^W^W^W^W being tyrannical, but after it is invaded it turns out that it wasn't that tyrannical after all?
  I would be too all for system of removing tyrannical states but it is not a practical possibility currently.
6. Re:good or bad? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-23 11:00 · Score: 0
  
  Yes. Just be smart.
  Or, actually, the opposite. Can you name a single case where some country's internal affairs were improved after intervention of some external force? Kaddafi maybe an asshole, but every nation gets no better government that it deserves. It's possible to eliminate him, but their next leader won't be any better.
7. Re:good or bad? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-23 12:30 · Score: 0
  
  NO, but doing nothing isn't a good idea either.
8. Re:good or bad? by cornface · 2011-08-24 02:16 · Score: 1
  
  I'd say intervening in the affairs of the Axis powers would suffice as "a single case."
Newsflash by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-23 09:36 · Score: 0

A company that sells weapons sold weapons to an armed group. Film at 11.
not armed? by Kildjean · 2011-08-23 09:38 · Score: 1

It probably had an iPad to show the Lybians something scary that they havent't seen before, like a never ending Terrance and Phillip show...

--
Nom de dieu de putain de bordel de merde de saloperie de connard d encule de ta mere.
"Don't worry, it's not armed." by Snufu · 2011-08-23 09:39 · Score: 1

Yet.
Sincerely,
Wacko Serial Bomber.
It was probably thought too rude to say no... by mark-t · 2011-08-23 09:39 · Score: 1

Poor-sport hockey fans on the west coast notwithstanding, isn't being polite a Canadian stereotype?

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
1. Re:It was probably thought too rude to say no... by Dr+Caleb · 2011-08-23 09:51 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  We are polite. Americans however confuse 'polite' with 'weak'. I don't understand why. As Churchill said, "If you must kill a man, it costs you nothing to be polite about it.".
  
  --
  "History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." Mark Twain
2. Re:It was probably thought too rude to say no... by Phrogman · 2011-08-23 09:52 · Score: 1
  
  That's not entirely true, I am sure there is at least one rude Canadian up here. Oh sorry, I didn't mean to offend you by disagreeing with you... :P
  
  --
  "The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
3. Re:It was probably thought too rude to say no... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-23 10:18 · Score: 0
  
  Yes. But it is a stereotype. Canadian planes are also dropping bombs in Libya with NATO allies, which I suppose is a fairly rude thing to do.
  We may be a polite and tolerant people overall, but that doesn't mean we won't act upon seeing egregious human rights violations or that massacres of cities full of civilians are about to occur. It's why our armed forces were in Yugoslavia, for example, and Afghanistan. We have a small military, so it's not a big contribution in Libya, but we're there. In fact the military head of the NATO forces over Libya is a Canadian.
  The intervention seems to be something that is welcomed by the Libyans. When I saw the celebrations on TV in Benghazi a couple of nights ago I noticed among the very many rebel flags there were also French, Qatar, and Canadian flags being waved around.
  Don't confuse "polite" and "tolerant" with "being willing to put up with anything".
4. Re:It was probably thought too rude to say no... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-23 10:37 · Score: 0
  
  the biggest rude asshole in Canada is Steven Harper.
5. Re:It was probably thought too rude to say no... by mark-t · 2011-08-23 11:11 · Score: 1
  
  I was trying to make a joke, for crying out loud.
  
  --
  File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
6. Re:It was probably thought too rude to say no... by DigiShaman · 2011-08-23 14:45 · Score: 1
  
  What's this 'we' stuff you're talking about? As an American myself, I never confuse kindness for weakness. But I know all too damn well that others do! So when it comes to American foreign policy, being kind to some nations often doesn't project the intent and capability that we are (generally) known for. Sometimes, the other side just doesn't get it.
  
  --
  Life is not for the lazy.
7. Re:It was probably thought too rude to say no... by Kylon99 · 2011-08-23 14:54 · Score: 1
  
  I didn't want to dig into the specifics of the wording, as you may have just accidently made this mistake, and I apologize if this ends up sounding offensive...
  But, the grandparent post was talking about 'politeness' vs. 'weakness' rather than 'kindness' vs. 'weakness.' There's a big difference between politeness and kindness as well, and the two are very different than weakness.
  Just thought I should bring that up. Excuse me.
  (And I am trying to be polite and not meaning this as a joke. And yes, I am Canadian...)
8. Re:It was probably thought too rude to say no... by bioster · 2011-08-23 15:59 · Score: 1
  
  What's this 'we' stuff you're talking about?
  I took that to mean he was Canadian, and affirming that Canadians are indeed polite.
9. Re:It was probably thought too rude to say no... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-23 18:28 · Score: 0
  
  Nobody seems to realize just what Canadians have done in wars throughout the years.
  And strangely enough, I find people far more polite when I go down south to Washington rather than at here in Vancouver.
10. Re:It was probably thought too rude to say no... by zippthorne · 2011-08-23 23:27 · Score: 1
  
  Surely it says something that even at a price of nothing, churchill wasn't willing to bear the cost....
  
  --
  Can you be Even More Awesome?!
11. Re:It was probably thought too rude to say no... by T.E.D. · 2011-08-24 02:20 · Score: 1
  
  Perhaps just the Northerners you are used to dealing with.
  I had a friend who grew up in Philidelphia. When he moved to the South he started raving about how nice everyone was. I had to hurredly explain the difference between friendly and polite to him (yes, people will be polite to you when they actually hate your guts). He was clueless.
12. Re:It was probably thought too rude to say no... by cffrost · 2011-08-24 03:13 · Score: 1
  
  I was trying to make a joke, for crying out loud.
  LOL4COL
  
  --
  Thank you, Edward Snowden.
  
  "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
Re:Of course by Riceballsan · 2011-08-23 09:42 · Score: 2, Insightful

ah it's not like we'd be dumb enough to put al-queda into power because we see them as the lesser evil... wait we did? oh right I keep forgetting apparently we are all idiots.
anti-war protestors? by drnb · 2011-08-23 09:46 · Score: 2, Insightful

And where are the anti-war protestors?
Waiting for a republican administration apparently.
1. Re:anti-war protestors? by Gravatron · 2011-08-23 09:51 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Not all liberals are opposed to all wars, just the ones we find unjust. In this case, you had a bunch of rebels who asked for NATO's help, and got it, in a very controlled, un-escalated form. No boots on the ground, no skyrocketing costs, no casualties, etc. It's almost a police action. Only the most pacifistic of liberals have a problem with it. Now, the conservatives did, but that was because they hate any situation where Obama can get a foreign policy victory.
2. Re:anti-war protestors? by geekoid · 2011-08-23 09:53 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, minor action in Libya with no ground forces is exactly the same as making up lies, invading a country, and then torturing people.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
3. Re:anti-war protestors? by LWATCDR · 2011-08-23 10:02 · Score: 2
  
  So as long as it is cheap it is okay?
  And the protests started before any of those things happened during the first Gulf war.
  My main problem is with the not obeying the war powers act.
  
  --
  See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
4. Re:anti-war protestors? by drnb · 2011-08-23 10:02 · Score: 1
  
  The point you are missing is that the wars in iraq and afghanistan are still basically following the bush war plan but the protesters are surprisingly absent.
5. Re:anti-war protestors? by shutdown+-p+now · 2011-08-23 10:02 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not a "pacifistic liberal". I have a problem with this because US is doing the exact same thing they did in Afghanistan 30 years ago - giving weapons to people who have similar short-term goals, while ignoring their long-term goals (see sig).
6. Re:anti-war protestors? by LWATCDR · 2011-08-23 10:05 · Score: 1
  
  And calling this a "No fly zone to protect civillans" isn't a lie? Bombing a country and killing it's citizens isn't an invasion? You are sending military forces into their territory. It isn't an occupation but it is still a violation of a nation by military forces. I will give you that no torture has happened yet by US forces.
  
  --
  See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
7. Re:anti-war protestors? by hedwards · 2011-08-23 10:51 · Score: 1
  
  The more costly it is the greater the necessary justification. Supporting rebels trying to overthrow a brutal dictator is really something that we should be doing more of. Especially when it's as cheap as it is. Granted we're still talking about many, many millions of dollars and probably billions of dollars, but ultimately, unlike Iraq, this is a war in which the people will thank us for our help.
  As opposed to Afghanistan which could have more effectively been done with cruise missiles given the lackluster attention the administration paid it and Iraq which was a complete mistake from the get go.
  As for the war powers act, if the President can't engage in this conflict in the manner that he is, then it's clearly unconstitutional. The war powers act was to prevent another Vietnam conflict, not to prevent the President from being able to exercise his powers as Commander and Chief.
8. Re:anti-war protestors? by cavePrisoner · 2011-08-23 10:53 · Score: 1
  
  Except for the part where the people asked for it, and proved with their own blood that they wanted to fight this fight. We refused to stand on the sidelines in an ongoing war and we made a difference. That's something to be proud of. Bringing war to a people at peace, even if they think they are unhappy, is something different entirely.
  
  Most people in the US don't like congress. What if a foreign power came in to "liberate" us from congress? You'd be pissed, right? Well what if you were presently in a life or death fight against congress and a foreign power showed up to give you help? That's different. Isn't it?
9. Re:anti-war protestors? by hedwards · 2011-08-23 10:57 · Score: 2
  
  There was a civil war going on. We were specifically requested by one side to stick our noses in. Yes we could have opted not to involve ourselves in it at all, but it's hardly a violation of a nation to take sides in a civil war when requested to do so by one of the sides. And ultimately the support we provided was pretty modest mainly serving as an evener to keep the rebels from being shot in droves from the air.
  Next thing you'll be telling us that the French shouldn't have aided American revolutionaries when they sought to kick the British out of what would become the USA.
10. Re:anti-war protestors? by LWATCDR · 2011-08-23 11:11 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Yes if you partake in a civil war on the side that is trying to overthrow a government you violating that nation. How could it be anything else. If the some group in the US asked for the overthrow of the the government and say China started firing cruise missiles at a base in the US would you not consider that an act of war?
  I mean really?
  Think about what you are saying?
  Yes it is taking a military action? Or if the US started to attack UK military bases because the IRA asked them too?
  As I asked do you feel that the US and NATO are "enforcing a no fly zone to protect civilians" and nothing more? Do you feel that attacking another nation is okay? Do you feel that not obeying the laws of the US involving military action is okay?
  I have no problem with taking action in Libya. I have a big problem with not obeying US laws while doing it.
  
  --
  See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
11. Re:anti-war protestors? by LWATCDR · 2011-08-23 11:14 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  "unlike Iraq, this is a war in which the people will thank us for our help."
  Some do in Iraq, some will not in Libya that is if they live. Just what makes you so sure that one brutal government will not be replaced by new one? May I suggest that you read the book A Tale of Two Cities.
  
  --
  See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
12. Re:anti-war protestors? by drnb · 2011-08-23 11:15 · Score: 1
  
  Did you read the post you replied to, or were you intending to reply to the original rather than the followup?
13. Re:anti-war protestors? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-23 11:51 · Score: 0
  
  +1 for truth.
14. Re:anti-war protestors? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-23 11:52 · Score: 0
  
  It could have something to do with the fact that a withdrawal is in progress.
15. Re:anti-war protestors? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-23 12:03 · Score: 0
  
  Oh, you mean like the Iraqi rebels that asked for help several times and were gunned down while dickheads like you protested? Or the Iranian rebels that asked for help several times and were gunned down while dickheads like you protested? Libya is only cheap because it's a tiny country, with relatively strong western influences compared to Iraq and it's right by the sea. You really don't have a clue what you're talking about. I'm just glad it's becoming more evident to the rest of the planet that liberals are clueless.
16. Re:anti-war protestors? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-23 12:11 · Score: 0
  
  "If the some group in the US asked for the overthrow of the the government and say China started firing cruise missiles at a base in the US would you not consider that an act of war?"
  If the US government were shelling and bombing its own citizens in whole cities with tanks, artillery, bombs, and rockets, the US government would have lost any legitimacy and the UN could authorize other countries to intervene. I'm sure the (now illegitimate) US government would say it was an act of war and regard it as such. It wouldn't change the fact that they were no longer fit to lead after attacking their own civilians and that the justification for intervention is fairly clearly spelled out in the UN charter to which it is a signatory.
  "As I asked do you feel that the US and NATO are "enforcing a no fly zone to protect civilians" and nothing more?
  Yes. It was amply demonstrated that in order to stop Ghaddafi's forces from harming civilians it wasn't enough to tell them to stop. They did not heed warnings. They had to be physically stopped. Wherever they started shooting at civilians, Ghaddafi's forces became targets. If they laid down their weapons, they weren't.
  "Do you feel that attacking another nation is okay?"
  In circumstances such as this, yes.
  "Do you feel that not obeying the laws of the US involving military action is okay?"
  No. And Obama should answer for that. Doesn't change the fact that intervening in Libya was the right decision.
  "I have no problem with taking action in Libya. I have a big problem with not obeying US laws while doing it."
  Same here. But that's a different issue.
17. Re:anti-war protestors? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-23 12:36 · Score: 0
  
  The US didn't give anyone weapons this time. The French did.
18. Re:anti-war protestors? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-23 12:38 · Score: 0
  
  You say it's cheap only because it is thusfar. You have no idea the outcome, so how can you suggest it will be cheap in the long run. Just because you don't thank the troops for Iraq doesn't mean many Iraqi's don't.
  Yeah, the Taliban that are well known to be really hard to find would EASILY have been just wiped off the planet by waves of cruise missiles. Brilliant. Why aren't you a General with military strategy like that?! That's hilarious. I mean, didn't Bill Clinton try that? Didn't work out very well, did it? Gee, I wonder why that would be? What are you going to target? Some tents? I bet you'd be first in line to protest if a Republican started lobbing cruise missiles into another nation.
  Have you even read the War Powers Act because it explicitly limits the presidents powers as Commander in Chief.
19. Re:anti-war protestors? by cavePrisoner · 2011-08-23 12:39 · Score: 1
  
  I was observing that it shouldn't be surprising that protestors are absent. And to compare the Libyan war in any way to something like Iraq is absurd. I thought Afghanistan was right. I thought Iraq was wrong, and I protested it. Getting involved in the Libyan war was the right thing to do.
  
  Yes, I see that your point was probably meant in regard to the constitutional or maybe international legality of the involvement. My point is that protestors are not driven by fine legal points. They are driven by moral views. You can have something that is illegal but right, or legal that is wrong.
20. Re:anti-war protestors? by nibbles2004 · 2011-08-23 13:03 · Score: 1
  
  Obama doesn't get a foreign policy victory from Libya, hate to tell you, the US involvement is minimal and they had to be dragggged into this. the Libyan Rebels, the British and the French get all credit for this, especially William Hague the British FM who was the 1st politician to call for this action and Obama poo-poo it,
21. Re:anti-war protestors? by sumdumass · 2011-08-23 13:42 · Score: 2
  
  If the US government were shelling and bombing its own citizens in whole cities with tanks, artillery, bombs, and rockets, the US government would have lost any legitimacy and the UN could authorize other countries to intervene. I'm sure the (now illegitimate) US government would say it was an act of war and regard it as such. It wouldn't change the fact that they were no longer fit to lead after attacking their own civilians and that the justification for intervention is fairly clearly spelled out in the UN charter to which it is a signatory.
  
  OMG, I can't believe you. The UN does not determine which country or government of a country has a right of sovereignty. The UN is not the world's decider on anything concerning a country unless it's somehow placed within their venue or they are participating in an act of war. In a civil war, you are not firing on your own citizens, you are firing on terrorist and hostile military. Nowhere in any UN charter does it state that a country cannot defend itself against armed insurrection.
  Someone must be feeding you full of crap or something. Please cite where you get these ideas.
  
  Yes. It was amply demonstrated that in order to stop Ghaddafi's forces from harming civilians it wasn't enough to tell them to stop. They did not heed warnings. They had to be physically stopped. Wherever they started shooting at civilians, Ghaddafi's forces became targets. If they laid down their weapons, they weren't.
  
  Lol.. So because government forces wouldn't listen to loud yelling, we entered into military action against them. You are proving the GP's point here. We for all intents and purposes invaded Libya for the reasons you stated.
22. Re:anti-war protestors? by drnb · 2011-08-23 13:44 · Score: 1
  
  No. My point is that the Iraqi and Afghan wars are largely continuing using the Bush war plans and yet the protesters have gone away. What changed? Mostly it was the political party in power.
23. Re:anti-war protestors? by KeensMustard · 2011-08-23 13:45 · Score: 1
  
  If the population of the US rose up against a dictator who had seized control of their country, and turned the military against his or her own people, and that population asked for our help, then absolutely, we would provide help. As with the Libyans the concern is for the people of the US, not the government.
24. Re:anti-war protestors? by LWATCDR · 2011-08-23 14:16 · Score: 2
  
  And are you saying that would not be an act of war? It is not is this the morally correct thing to do but is it an act of war or not.
  
  --
  See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
25. Re:anti-war protestors? by DigiShaman · 2011-08-23 14:40 · Score: 1
  
  Most conservatives that I know and hang with don't "hate" Obama. As a person, he seems like a nice guy. The kind you would want to party with. But come on, he's not fit to be commander in chief. Most likely he's acting on advice from his advisers like most POTUS do. But regardless, Obama is causing more harm to this nation via his ineptitude.
  I hope him and his family live a long and healthy life. But dear God, he needs to vacate the office ASAP. Him, and most of the congress as well!
  
  --
  Life is not for the lazy.
26. Re:anti-war protestors? by artor3 · 2011-08-23 15:20 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  So as long as it is cheap it is okay?
  Call me callous, but yes, to an extent. If we can help some rebels overthrow a dictator with minimal loss of life and a relatively low cost, with substantial support from our allies, then that's fine. I'd prefer we be more open about our intentions, but I understand the need for realpolitik.
  If the war is going to cost a trillion dollars, kill thousands of our kids and hundreds of thousands of civilians, and be led by a joke of a "Coalition of the Willing" that consists of us, Great Britain, and five guys from East Bumblefuck, then we ought to be a bit more cautious. The fact that our allies aren't willing to get on board should be a warning sign, not a cause to deride them as cowards and rename potato products.
  If Bush had handled Iraq the way Obama handled Libya, I would have been fine with it.
27. Re:anti-war protestors? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-23 16:11 · Score: 0
  
  i just wish i didn't have to vote for a republican to get obama out.
28. Re:anti-war protestors? by hedwards · 2011-08-23 17:21 · Score: 1
  
  I've got no problem with it. The War Powers Act was unconstitutional and I have yet to see anybody try to sue the President or the Federal Government for violating it. The President doesn't have grounds for a lawsuit as he can't demonstrate grounds without violating it.
  This isn't like those improperly declared wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, requiring the President to get approval for an operation of this type would significantly weaken the President's role as Commander and Chief which really requires a constitutional amendment.
  Remember that particular legislation was enacted during the 70s as a reaction to the Vietnam conflict, it was not written considering the possibility that in the future the President would have the capability to be engaged in hostilities from afar that wouldn't involve nuclear weapons.
  Beyond that Clinton ignored it as Obama is and Bush didn't need to ignore it because he was granted carte blanche to engage in his favorite wars without getting them properly signed off on.
29. Re:anti-war protestors? by hedwards · 2011-08-23 17:23 · Score: 1
  
  Personally, I would hope so and so long as the forces recognized our right to self governance afterwards and put us back on the road to democracy the military personnel would be greeted as liberators.
  That being said, it's unlikely to happen just because it would require a virtual WWW III to take down the US military and the dictator would have nukes.
30. Re:anti-war protestors? by drnb · 2011-08-23 17:41 · Score: 1
  
  It could have something to do with the fact that a withdrawal is in progress.
  Bush also planned a withdrawal. Bush said when conditions were right after a surge to increase stability. Obama said after a surge to increase stability we will withdrawal on this date, unless conditions indicate that withdrawal should be delayed or if the Iraqi gov't asks us to stay longer. Yeah, that is some real policy change there.
31. Re:anti-war protestors? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-23 18:01 · Score: 0
  
  Just what makes you so sure that one brutal government will not be replaced by new one?
  You can't be sure of anything in life. Better to risk it and maybe one day live under a just government than take the certain bet of living under a known-bad government. Maybe that's just me, but I don't think so.
32. Re:anti-war protestors? by Alex+Belits · 2011-08-23 21:23 · Score: 1
  
  But US had a civil war once. With US government attacking US citizens all over the place, and those citizens doing likewise. Would it not be an act of war if foreign military attacked North on behalf of the South? Libyan "rebels" have less legitimacy now than Confederation had then.
  
  --
  Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
33. Re:anti-war protestors? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-23 22:36 · Score: 0
  
  You mean, help wannabe dictators with intent to overthrow existing dictator and get rich all the while the country gets broken apart by civil war.
  Check your facts on who exactly are those 'rebels'.
34. Re:anti-war protestors? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-24 00:58 · Score: 0
  
  Presidents since 9/11 have been given "blank checks for war" (google it) to go after anyone and anything, anywhere, that might possibly be related to terrorism by means of provisions in the yearly National Defense Authorization Acts.
  As they're open-ended authorizations AND given that Libya's (former, we hope) government was an open supporter of anti-Western terrorism, it sound a lot to me as if he's got congressional justification.
35. Re:anti-war protestors? by couchslug · 2011-08-24 01:38 · Score: 1
  
  If you are making contention, YOU can supply support for YOUR position, TYVM.
  
  --
  "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
36. Re:anti-war protestors? by LWATCDR · 2011-08-24 02:04 · Score: 1
  
  The question isn't would it be right or wrong. The question is wouldn't that be an act of war. AKA in invasion. Not an occupation but an invasion of that nation. Suppose the party requesting the help in the Civil war was the Klan? Would that make it easier for your?
  
  --
  See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
37. Re:anti-war protestors? by LWATCDR · 2011-08-24 02:06 · Score: 1
  
  Then you support the Iraqi war. Remember the Kurds and others wanted Sadam out and he was a known-bad government.
  
  --
  See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
38. Re:anti-war protestors? by LWATCDR · 2011-08-24 03:50 · Score: 1
  
  "UN could authorize other countries to intervene."
  No it actually can not. The UN can only act on external threats aka a war between nations it can not authorize intervention in a purely civil war. Now if the Rebels where getting help from another nation then the UN can intervene on the dictators side or if the dictator attacked safe havens in other countries then those countries could as for help.
  If you read that post that I was originally responding to he the poster said "Yes, minor action in Libya with no ground forces is exactly the same as making up lies, invading a country, and then torturing people."
  I just pointed out that yes there was IMHO making up lies, invading a country and while no reported torture there was a huge abuse of US law. Of course the argument keeps coming back to "Well BUSH DID X" verses is what the administration is doing now right? That is a terrible ethical and moral stance to take an one that lacks integrity.
  
  --
  See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
39. Re:anti-war protestors? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-24 04:13 · Score: 0
  
  If Bush had handled Iraq the way Obama handled Libya, I would have been fine with it.
  Apple meet orange! If Bush had handled Iraq the way Obama handled Libya, Iran would have annexed Iraq quite quickly.... ref
40. Re:anti-war protestors? by canadian_right · 2011-08-24 04:20 · Score: 2
  
  Obama has done a lot to fix the huge errors in judgement the bush ii admin made. As an outside observer I would have to say that bush ii was the biggest disaster the usa has ever had. He started an unnecessary war, lied about the reason for starting it, and did many other things, including various less than insightful statements, that made the usa a laughingstock in the eyes of much of the world. Freedom Fries. Right. Statesmen don't respond to valid criticism, and honest advice with schoolboy tantrums.
  Obama is winding down the wars. He tried to shut Gitmo, but was thwarted by republican cowards. Yes, cowards that stated they are afraid to have terrorists in jails on usa soil, unlike the French they like to bash.
  Obama has been a statesman. Bush II was a cowboy.
  
  --
  Anarchists never rule
41. Re:anti-war protestors? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-24 05:00 · Score: 0
  
  Samuel Doe was a brutal military dictator. Would you like to know the rebel who killed and took over from him and what they did to the citizens of Liberia and helped do in Sierra-Leone?
  There is a "democratic dictator" in Uganda, you want to know what the rebels against him use in their insurgent tactics?
  Some of you are quite stupid with no proper grasp on history or way of gauging what is happening or going to happen in a country based on the culture and ethnic diversity of it's citizens.
  But hey, don't let me bother you while you enjoy sipping you morning coffee in the comfort of your home will a whole country has been thrown into chaos because someone else wants control and to rule. Just so you know, while you celebrate, the islamists are doing the same at islamist .com
42. Re:anti-war protestors? by ChilyWily · 2011-08-24 06:45 · Score: 1
  
  Great example! Additionally, I would add that this model of "protecting the people" is very selectively applied. Consider Somalia, war, famine, pirates, lawlessness, etc. yet, how come there is no one to "protect the Somali People". Or how about China, they too have a lot of issues where their people need protection... or India 'the largest democracy' where people right now on hunger strike to protest against corruption are being killed?
Re:Of course by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-23 09:59 · Score: 0

Funny, Israel is giving unmanned drones to al-qaeda. Very funny.
Re:Idiots by nedlohs · 2011-08-23 10:01 · Score: 1

Yes cruise missiles are very similar to tiny helicopters...
Re:Idiots by teslafreak · 2011-08-23 10:18 · Score: 1

Not really. More like a more maneuverable RPG.
Which rebels got this? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-23 10:19 · Score: 0

The Libyan rebels are a mixture of genuine disaffected Libyans, opportunistic ex-Gadhafi henchmen and al-Quaeda supporters.
Please tell you gave it to the first group and not to either of the other two. Please?
BTW any news on the ground-to-air missiles that have been looted from Gadhafi's military stores?
Didn't I see that... by roc97007 · 2011-08-23 10:29 · Score: 2

...in the Sharper Image catalog?

--
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Very enterprising. by Fubari · 2011-08-23 10:59 · Score: 1

Very enterprising.
Reminds me of "Market Forces" (by Richard Morgan, author of Altered Carbon among others).
Kind of like venture capital firms, but competing for would-be regimes in sovereign states instead of startup businesses.
Rather plausible.

A coup in Cambodia. Guns to Guatemala. For the men and women of Shorn Associates, opportunity is calling. In the superheated global village of the near future, big money is made by finding the right little war and supporting one side against the other–in exchange for a share of the spoils.
Oh, and the "death match" road warrior duels to make Partner in a firm didn't hurt the story any. :-)
Thats too big... by Zandali · 2011-08-23 11:09 · Score: 1

because who has a 4 foot backpack? Their are r/c heli vehicles with extreme range and cameras on the white market. Big whoop.

--
Lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who, being naughty in My sight, shall snuff it.
"Don't worry, it's not armed." by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-23 11:25 · Score: 0

Not yet..
Someone get the duct tape, I'll grab a glock.
don't ask us by circletimessquare · 2011-08-23 12:22 · Score: 1

ask a libyan
the point is aggression is wrong, right?
well, the aggression of the qadaffi regime against it's own people has been defeated. as someone who doesn't like aggressive warmongering, you're happy, right?
oh i see. you believe in things like the toothfairy, the easter bunny, and that people like qaddafi go away by themselves, like a popped soap bubble. and that all the criminality they do in the meantime, until they will magically pop like a soap some day, is acceptable to you? is that it?
choose:
1. oppose qadaffi, with force, in the name of the people of libya, with the people of libya. that's really all the justification you need
2. or allow him to continue to exist, thereby making you complicit with evil by your inaction
there is such a thing as a pacifist in this world, and i appreciate them. but sometimes, i imagine some pacificists would sit there serenely, while witnessing a rape or murder. because force, ANY use of force, is apparently wrong to them
when do you pick up force of arms and oppose evil at work in the world? never? then to me, you are not a pacifist, you are an inert stump. you live in an ivory tower and sneer down at us poor fools in the messiness of life, and imagine yourself superior, because you won't roll up your sleeves and get messy in important struggles as well. you've simply ceased to matter to the world, by your own choice, and therefore, you have also forfeited your right to comment, on situations you yourself have chosen not to matter to
so stand for something in this world, ready to back up with force if necessary, or follow through on your own philosophy of not mattering in this world, and fuck off and shut up

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
1. Re:don't ask us by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-24 02:56 · Score: 0
  
  Maybe you could do a movie about inert zombies. That would be great.
2. Re:don't ask us by LWATCDR · 2011-08-24 04:06 · Score: 1
  
  "ask a libyan
  the point is aggression is wrong, right?"
  Guess what? It will depend on which one you ask? Do you really think that every Libyan is hates the current government and wants revolution?
  Every statement you made could have and was said about Iraq as well.
  I actually do think that intervention in Libya is a good thing but I am more concerned about the spin and they abuse of US law by the current administration.
  1. The current administration REFUSES to follow US law in the form of the War Powers Act of 1973. He is making the claim that the US is not involved in "Hostilities" in Libya. That is flat out not true.
  2. Calling this a "No Fly Zone for the protection of civilians" is also a lie. You do not fly Close Air Support (CAS) as part of a no fly zone. You also do not use drones as part of a no fly zone enforcement because the current drones are about useless in air to air.
  3. The "Peace Movement" has shown that they are nothing but a bunch of partisan tools and have lost all legitimacy by remaining silent on this. Of course they pretty much lost any credibility when they protested at the home of the FORMER vice president.
  
  --
  See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
3. Re:don't ask us by circletimessquare · 2011-08-24 10:13 · Score: 1
  
  right: the qaddafi regime will stop butchering it's people and wait while you wrangle over your legalisms
  maybe you can get the UN to write him an angry letter. that'll teach qaddafi
  pffffffffffft
  and i'm glad that you side with the tiny minority of libyans invested in the current regime at the pig feeding trough that defend his murderous regime
  sir: you've lost your moral compass. you only have a legal compass. it is not sufficient for what you think it is sufficient for. namely, doing the right thing
  
  --
  intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
4. Re:don't ask us by LWATCDR · 2011-08-24 13:13 · Score: 1
  
  Tiny minority? Have you taken a poll? Yes I feel that in a democratic country rule of law must always be upheld. The "Damn the law and do what is right" will most often end up terribly wrong. Why not go to congress and get their approval or at least try.
  There is a reason why we have such laws. Every villain is the hero of their own story. I use my moral compass just fine to guide my own actions. The thing is that the president of the US is not a king and is bound by laws. He must always use a legal compass.
  
  --
  See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
5. Re:don't ask us by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-24 14:14 · Score: 0
  
  Maybe you could make a movie about legal zombies. That would be great.
Hello by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-23 13:06 · Score: 0

Arms embargo anyone?
Re:Of course by sumdumass · 2011-08-23 13:17 · Score: 1

hmm.. when did we do that? or are you talking about something Canada did?
Dirty by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-23 14:14 · Score: 0

So wars are fought like this now? Somehow I feel bad that the US/EU/CANADA would impose an export embargo's on libya as a state and when there is an uprising/revolution in the country they would have disregard for their own rules.... ah yes, another great example of double standards.
Re:Of course by artor3 · 2011-08-23 15:12 · Score: 1

Al Qaeda is bad, ergo all rebel forces are bad forever!
Great logic you got going there. Nevermind the fact that in any large movement of people whose only membership criteria is a pulse, you'll find a whole bunch of bad ones. The Republican party probably contains at least a thousand neo-Nazis. That doesn't mean that the GOP is a Nazi organization.
So why should it matter if there are some self-proclaimed Al Qaeda members among the Libyan rebels? Should we insist that they be ruled by oppressive dictators forever, lest the unsavory elements among them try to hurt us? And if so, is there any country on Earth that shouldn't be so oppressed?
Low Cost International Marketing by arthurpaliden · 2011-08-23 15:30 · Score: 1

Story picked up by international news agencies regarding real world use with real imagining from that use on their web site. Some marketing drone, pun intended, is in for a job promotion.

--
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
NATO like rebels by luk3Z · 2011-08-23 17:17 · Score: 0

I hope if any state in USA rebel (ie. Texas or Alaska) then NATO & Canada help them too by bombarding Capitol etc.

--
Recipes for USA bankrupt - http://tinypaste.com/0d66f dd = dollar deluge (printed in the infinity)
ITAR restricted? by advocate_one · 2011-08-23 19:07 · Score: 1

Hmmm wonder if they given the Libyans any ITAR restricted stuff... If they have and they haven't got the proper agreement in place, then they're in deep doo-doo... Canadians or not...

--
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
What you might not know. Concerns! by NSN+A392-99-964-5927 · 2011-08-23 19:51 · Score: 1

For the past 14 months the S.R.R Special Reconnaissance Regiment has been in Libya assisting the Rebels, along with CIA operatives on the ground, Canadian SAS, British SAS and SBS (Special Boat Service) and French Special Forces etc.
This uprising was actually engineered well before what you have seen unfolding over the last 7 months. Covert operations saw uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia etc and being ex-forces we laughed that you cannot get the right trained soldiers anymore when 21 and 22 SAS got caught http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2011/mar/06/arab-and-middle-east-protests-libya (6th March 2011).
I have not been in the forces now for over 14 years and I specifically quit out of protest of illegal wars and the political motivated bullshit plundering another Countries wealth with fake propaganda.
The Rebels in Libya are highly disorganized and are volatile. Getting them to form a government will see corruption, suicide bombings and further unrest in the Middle East, but that is what world leaders want...... chaos as a means of continuing with the New World Order political machine. If you want to see what is NOT in the news just google "Iraq Today". Nothing but chaos left behind whist stealing oil.
I am sat on the fence regarding the rebels and Gaddafi. It would have just been better to have left things as they stood instead of poking our noses in where it did not belong. All you will see is Guerilla Warfare for years to come and more terrorist attacks, which will add to the New World Order political control and more anti-terrorist laws. Besides it is within the "Public's Best Interest"....... "Choke".

--
All cows eat grass!
So what happened? by JockTroll · 2011-08-23 20:34 · Score: 1

Did they eat it?

--
Geeks are so full of shit that "beating the crap out of them" takes a whole new meaning.
canada != us by arnodf · 2011-08-23 22:37 · Score: 0

It strikes me that a topic involving Canada immediately provokes discussions on how the USA is supporting terrorists and waging war all over the world and that they are supporting dictators. Last I heard Canada has nothing to do with the USA...or is that something US Americans can't accept?
It's socialism not Gaddafi being overthrown by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-23 22:59 · Score: 0

The western governments have long wanted to see an end to Gaddafi not because he is a dictator or because he suppresses all opposition but because the policies of a country run by just one man are unpredictable. They see him as a loose cannon ready to put a spanner in the works of whatever capitalist plans they might want to impose. Gaddafi was certainly a dictator but the policies he imposed were largely socialist in nature and tended to benefit the poor at the expense of the middle classes. Some of the latter had to leave Libya and spent many years in the US or UK. Now, some of them have returned and are leading the 'revolution' with the advice, weapons, military personnel and financial support of the west (particularly from the UK).
The intervention of the west has nothing to do with the protection of the civilian population and has everything to do with opportunism and an attempt to rid themselves of a thorn in their side.
Once he is gone, the government which replaces him will be easier to manipulate and you can be sure that capitalism will take root there in the near future - because those in charge will have spent a large part of their lives living in the west.
How is a democratic government easier to manipulate than a dictator? Easy, just provide support, advice and good PR for the candidates who seem more amenable and vilify those who are not. If that is done in a subtle way the electorate, having read the newspapers and watched the television news, will make the 'right' selection themselves. With a dictator you are stuck with what you've got, and if he wants to kick the capitalist corporations out of the country he will do it. So called democracies are easy to manipulate if you have the resources to do it.
Representative democracies are fatally flawed. The representatives end up voting for policies which appeal to them and not for policies which their constituents wanted them to vote for. The only real democracy which stands a chance of working is one in which the people get to vote on the legislation itself. Don't hold your breath. No politician in this world will be likely to give you that sort of power. That would be just a bit too democratic. What will be imposed in Libya is a 'representative' democracy then the west can lobby and bribe those representatives to do their business.
Windows by Arancaytar · 2011-08-24 00:45 · Score: 1

run by a touchscreen tablet powered by Windows XP
Pretty brave of these Libyan rebels to rely on Windows in a battlefield.
When they'll try to look at the videos by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-24 01:18 · Score: 0

They'll see [ This Video is not available in your country ]
That all depends by DarthVain · 2011-08-24 02:39 · Score: 1

If you count Toronto as part of Canada or not...