UN Backs Action Against Colonel Gaddafi 501
chielk writes "The UN Security Council has backed a no-fly zone over Libya and 'all necessary measures' short of an invasion 'to protect civilians and civilian-populated areas.' The UK, France and Lebanon proposed the council resolution, with US support."
May Not Be Enough (Score:4, Insightful)
The U.S. military does not view a no-fly zone as sufficient to stopping Gadhafi.
Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz told a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Thursday that establishing such a zone "would not be sufficient" to stop the gains made by Gadhafi.
Schwartz told the committee that establishing a no-fly zone would take "upwards of a week."
I hope this helps the rebels, but they have a lot to overcome, yet.
Re:Similar Revolts (Score:5, Insightful)
A lot of very good questions.
The answer to all of them is "We don't know."
A day late and a dollar short (Score:5, Insightful)
No matter where you stand on the issue of a no-fly zone... I'm conflicted on it myself... it's too late now. It was needed a week ago, at least. Gaddafi has basically won already, crushing the rebels brutally with airpower and pushing them to their last refuge. He doesn't need airpower to beat them now. He has them encircled with superior forces now. Once again, the UN arrives after the damage is already done. If you're placing your hopes in the "international community" to save you from someone like Gaddafi, then you really have no hope at all.
If you're going to do something like a no-fly zone, then above all things, you have to be decisive. Either do it or don't do it, but don't sit around for weeks seeking "consensus". It's too late by then.
Re:Similar Revolts (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Circlejerk (Score:0, Insightful)
Re:Russia and China (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:News For Nerds (Score:5, Insightful)
It's news for nerds because events like this actually *are* important. Probably in the grand scheme of things more important than the vast majority of stories. Just because you don't give a fuck about what is going on in the world or would rather read crappy comments on some straight site with a poor comment system, doesn't mean that others should. What better place to read news than here, with the most novel and thorough moderation system on the internet in action? Ben Franklin was a nerd, and so were many of the framers of the U.S. Constitution (That rag that we used to base our government on ). Seems to me that fighting for freedom from tyranny is one of the most universal ideals across all nationalities, religions. Would we mock Jefferson were he around and penning submissions on government to Slashdot? I think not. This matters to me because now we have a third military operation for the U.S, and its real blood that gets spilled, not like some stupid FPS game.... Jeez you'd think more people would give a damn, but then again that's our problem.. we'd rather eat Cheeto's and be told what to worry about rather than thinking for ourselves, and god forbid if the real world gets in the way of what YOU want. Too bad.
Hypocrisy of Arabic governments and our own (Score:4, Insightful)
It just doesn't seem fair.
Re:Similar Revolts (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, that's not really a fair statement as the social media and modern technology is basically building from our cold-war efforts. The internet certainly was a cold war project.
Re:Similar Revolts (Score:4, Insightful)
America is not ready for $10/gallon. We don't have the infrastructure to reduce our reliance on petroleum, and a +100% or more increase in petroleum will spell the end of everything we ever thought was remotely cheap.
Re:UN declares war on Libya (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course this is about subduing. This is the face of humanity underneath the very thin veneer of civilization. There is no objective "right" or "wrong" here, just those views of the UN representatives, the views of Ghadafihoweveryouspellit, the views of the Libyians, and the views of the citizenry represented by the UN, of which there are conflicting views. The whole notion of "legal" is thrown out with a toppled government, as the toppling typically stems from the currently executed notion of "legal" being fundamentally unwanted and reprehensible by the people at large, turning over into revolution as a final survival response to eliminate that "legal" system of behavior that threatens them.
And yes, the UN is acting as a "world police" here, stating that the Libyan people should not be treated as they are, thus trumping Ghadafi's sovereignty. Now, there might be all sorts of other ulterior motives at play, but this coincides with the public view.
There are days when I hate being a westerner.
This is a very strange statement to make, after exposing the basic primal human responses going on here. Of course, the whole "western" notion carries its own conflict of "freedom to act" vs "freedom from oppression", where Ghadafi is acting and the Libyans are being oppressed. The UN obviously holds the latter as overruling the former, and has the power to act against his actions (though at the speed of government). I'm curious to hear you expand on your statement.
Re:Similar Revolts (Score:5, Insightful)
To compound the issue, it is very, very arguable that the Cold War made the social media possible quicker than not having a Cold War. It pushed the gov. into developing DARPANET, and was at least partially responsible for pushing technology into the mainstream faster. It might have taken another 10-20 years (maybe longer) if the whole world "just got along" after WW2.
And while many people say "if not for war, we could have developed even more", I call BS. Fear and paranoia will always make people spend more money and resources to develop defensive technology than love and peace. That said, a little love and peace would be nice right about now.
Re:Similar Revolts (Score:5, Insightful)
We don't have the infrastructure to reduce our reliance on petroleum...
And of course that precludes building one... I mean, it's not like we learned anything over the last 35 years.. Why change now?
Re:Circlejerk (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh bullshit. The permanent members of the Security Council control the UN. If one of them vetoes, then regardless of what the US says, there's no UN sanctioning of an action.
Gaddafi brought this on himself, and I have to wonder at anybody that sheds a tear because that vile bastard is about to get his ass hammered.
Re:Similar Revolts (Score:2, Insightful)
Gas wont go that high. When oil gets to a high enough point all the wells in the US will open and start pumping. There is a lot of oil in the US but it's expensive to pump it....but not for long at the prices we're starting to see.
Re:UN declares war on Libya (Score:5, Insightful)
By 'everything short of an invasion' we are unquestionably violating Libya's sovereignty. However, there's a pretty big 'we' who are doing this: The League Of Arab States is requesting this [wsj.com], and Arab states are saying they'll *help* enforce a no-fly zone [reuters.com] -- not just allow overflights or refueling.
I think unilateral activity -- Iraq invading Kuwait -- or nearly unilateral activity -- the USA, along with a bunch of allies who seemed to be having their arms twisted, invading Iraq -- is not civilized behavior. But at some point, a state's violence against others and against its own citizens becomes unacceptable to observers.
This is war, as you say, and I'm not at all sure it's going to end well. Things like rights and ethics shouldn't be a majority-rule issue, so just because practically everyone from his own citizens, to his neighbors, to countries who have historically had a lot of conflict with him are all saying he has to go isn't in itself a sufficient reason for the UN to pretty much say we're committing ourselves to overthrowing him. But at the same time, you don't just stand around and watch a father beat his children to death, even if he holds that position of power.
I don't like interfering with other countries: I think it's a bad idea and leads to all sorts of unanticipated problems. But I think there are times when *not* interfering is worse. Whether this is one of those times -- and whether it'll actually do any good -- is a much harder question for me.
Re:Hypocrisy of Arabic governments and our own (Score:5, Insightful)
Malaysia, Indonesia?
Didn't hear much about them, and that's half the Islamic world there. Indo's had a few coups in the past but I hear cricket's now.
Perhaps by "Islamic" you mean "Arabic" governments and by "all" you mean "some". Quite a few Arab govt's are still safe. Most notably Palestine, Syria and Jordan.
Now I've fixed up that errata, the problem is food. As always dictators are happily accepted so long as everyone has enough to eat. The problem they are having now is that food prices are rising and the governments who have been subsidising the price of staples are running out of money. That's the driver behind this, people are paying more for bread.
Now Arabic governments have always been a bit despotic, but that is status quo for the Arabs. Price of food and living standards are the drivers for most of the people, a few are using this opportunity to push political agenda's be they democratic, despotic or otherwise.
Re:UN declares war on Libya (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Hypocrisy of Arabic governments and our own (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is the whole Islamic world up in arms against their own governments now? Because Wikileaks showed them what their governments were really up to, and it pushed a long-fermenting resentment over the top. A few people associated with Wikileaks did what the U.S. could not with the trillions of dollars they've put into their attempts to influence policy in the region.
Right - because this is all Wikileaks' doing. It's got nothing to do with any other events in regional politics or economics. It's all Wikileaks. And Wikileaks did it all on their own by leaking documents that were essentially hearsay being passed between US Government offices. That's right; it was all Wikileaks.
So, now we're going to simultaneously give Wikileaks its victory by taking advantage of the unrest it fermented, and prosecute the folks who brought us that victory.
It just doesn't seem fair.
"Those who brought us that victory?" You mean the young Army intel analyst who thought he would show "how the first world exploits the third, in detail" and then failed to deliver? Manning was a fool who will likely pay a hefty price for that foolishness if the Army put forward a decent case against him. If you mean people like Assange, I doubt it. The US Government are obviously seeking some way to touch Wikileaks but I would be surprised if they can produced anything that will stick.
Re:Hypocrisy of Arabic governments and our own (Score:3, Insightful)
Where is the wikileaks release about what Libya has done to their own people and how many people in Libya read it?
Same with Tunisia and Egypt, social media tools let people get spun up against injustices and that sparked the revolts, not Wikileaks.
Re:Circlejerk (Score:1, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:UN declares war on Libya (Score:5, Insightful)
It violates Libya's sovereignty.
It violates the "sovereignty" of the totally illegitimate dictatorship run by an insane monster.
It is actively invited and indeed demanded by the group which appears to represent the people of Libya.
Why are Ghadafi's interests "sovereign", but the citizens of Libya's interests "non-sovereign"?
Think about it in the context of what would happen if this civilian uprising were occurring in the Britain. The authorities would use varying levels of force to quell the unrest. At times, these levels would be appropriate.
Arguably if a genuine civilian uprising were to occur anywhere, it would be inherently legitimate, and if the reprisals were sufficiently disproportionate then intervention would be valid. I would certainly hope that the rest of us would intervene to rescue a rebelling British population from being massacred by a dictatorship if that's what it came to - wouldn't you?
Your argument appears to be that the preferred position is to stand back and allow unarmed or lightly armed civilians who seek to impose democracy to be massacred, because it is more important to recognise the theoretical diplomatic status of brutal regimes. Are you sure that's really how you feel?
Re:Hypocrisy of Arabic governments and our own (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Similar Revolts (Score:5, Insightful)
Nor -will- you ever get that readiness or that infrastructure unless fuel-prices rise significantly.
The very -reason- you're not able to handle it, is that you're not used to it. Perfectly normal gasoline is over $9/gallon here already, and it's causing pretty close to zero problems.
It's not the price that's the problem, it's the sudden and large fluctuation that's problematic, because it takes time to adapt. (for example, at $10/gallon buying certain kinds of cars become less attractive)
I think it's about time you *started* adapting. It's not as if being dependant on the middle-east is going to be a more attractice proposition in the future, and it's not as if the reserves of oil in the ground are growing.