Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Military United Kingdom United States News Politics

UN Backs Action Against Colonel Gaddafi 501

Posted by timothy from the ronald-assange-julian-reagan dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

UN Backs Action Against Colonel Gaddafi More

UN Backs Action Against Colonel Gaddafi

Comments Filter:

  • Similar Revolts (Score:5, Interesting)

    by cosm ( 1072588 ) <thecosm3@gmai l . c om> on Thursday March 17, 2011 @07:54PM (#35524848)
    I submitted an article on this as well, so I will just repost the question I posed again.

    With the intervention of western countries, do you think this resolution will influence further revolutions across the globe, fueled by the hope that the UN will come to the rescue if the targets of revolt become aggressors similar to Gadhafi?

    I am of the opinion we will see more revolutions, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and even possibly Iran. This will get real interesting, especially if places where the oil interest become threatened. $10 a gallon average U.S. gas price this summer anybody? Isn't it interesting that social media and modern technology have done more for the desire for democratization than most of our cold-war efforts ever did? Caveats to the benefits of revolution are, however, numerous.

    Who will fill the power vacuum? Will the next party be worse than the prior? Is it worth the bloodshed and genocide? Will the county's stability spiral downward, further lowering standards of living and liberty? Interesting times we live in...

    • Re:Similar Revolts (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Hartree ( 191324 ) on Thursday March 17, 2011 @07:59PM (#35524890)

      A lot of very good questions.

      The answer to all of them is "We don't know."

      • The answer to all of them is "We don't know."

        Well, except for "Isn't it interesting that social media and modern technology have done more for the desire for democratization than most of our cold-war efforts ever did?"
        That one is, for me, a definite "Yes."

        • Re:Similar Revolts (Score:4, Insightful)

          by sumdumass ( 711423 ) on Thursday March 17, 2011 @08:44PM (#35525294) Journal

          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:5, Insightful)

          by Pharmboy ( 216950 ) on Thursday March 17, 2011 @09:02PM (#35525408) Journal

          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)

      by phantomfive ( 622387 ) on Thursday March 17, 2011 @08:07PM (#35524974) Journal
      If $10 gas means that more people around the globe can be free, all of whom are my brothers and sisters (and other gendered siblings), it is a price I am willing to pay.
      • Treasure is only half the cost of war. Blood is the other half. How willing are you to pay that price from your own accounts?
    • I really don't think any of these revolutions have been initiated with the hope that western countries will come to their rescue. People have realized the power of masses and these revolutions have only been against the dictatorship. That sort of answers the question that there probably won't be a revolution like this in Iran. Bahrain, likely, Saudi Arab, depends on how the Saudis handle their own. Also, social media and modern technology have just aided to the cause, they are not really the reason behind r

    • Hypocrisy of Arabic governments and our own (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Bruce Perens ( 3872 ) <bruce@perens.com> on Thursday March 17, 2011 @08:39PM (#35525246) Homepage Journal
      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. 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.

      • Re:Hypocrisy of Arabic governments and our own (Score:5, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 17, 2011 @09:39PM (#35525588)

        And here I thought it was all set in motion because a Tunisian street vendor named Mohamed Bouazizi self immolated after local authorities ignored him when he was trying to get redress after a policewoman confiscated his wares. Silly me.

      • Re:Hypocrisy of Arabic governments and our own (Score:5, Insightful)

        by mjwx ( 966435 ) on Thursday March 17, 2011 @09:44PM (#35525626)

        Why is the whole Islamic world up in arms against their own governments now?

        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.

        • People who are having trouble affording food would already have dropped off of Facebook and Twitter. They would not be making heavy use of the Internet from their smartphones.

          I've been to Tunisia. The folks who had social networking were in Carthage and Tunis, and lived at the French standard. The hungry folks haven't just become hungry recently.

      • A few people associated with Wikileaks did what the U.S. could not STOP with the trillions of dollars they've put into their attempts to influence policy in the region.

      • Re:Hypocrisy of Arabic governments and our own (Score:5, Insightful)

        by _Sprocket_ ( 42527 ) on Thursday March 17, 2011 @10:27PM (#35525866)

        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: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Wyatt Earp ( 1029 )

        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.

    • I am of the opinion we will see more revolutions, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and even possibly Iran. This will get real interesting, especially if places where the oil interest become threatened.

      Nothing of the sort will happen. The only reason the UN backed the Libyan rebels is because the Middle-Eastern countries agreed to it. The reason they agreed to it is because Gaddafi is crazy, and no one likes him.

      Bahrain did have a revolution. It was crushed by the Bahraini, Saudi and UAE militaries. Sorry you missed it - it ended almost before it began. Saudi Arabia will not revolt (the government is way too strong and is slowly...very slowly...implementing reforms). As for Iran, anything is possible, but

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Nyder ( 754090 )

      I submitted an article on this as well, so I will just repost the question I posed again.

      With the intervention of western countries, do you think this resolution will influence further revolutions across the globe, fueled by the hope that the UN will come to the rescue if the targets of revolt become aggressors similar to Gadhafi?

      I am of the opinion we will see more revolutions, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and even possibly Iran. This will get real interesting, especially if places where the oil interest become threatened. $10 a gallon average U.S. gas price this summer anybody? Isn't it interesting that social media and modern technology have done more for the desire for democratization than most of our cold-war efforts ever did? Caveats to the benefits of revolution are, however, numerous.

      Who will fill the power vacuum? Will the next party be worse than the prior? Is it worth the bloodshed and genocide? Will the county's stability spiral downward, further lowering standards of living and liberty? Interesting times we live in...

      I think I can answer this.

      Whomever we support, in 10 to 20 years, we will be at war against them. WMD or sex crimes, or hiding wikileaks members or something.

      Watch.

    • I hate to be pessimistic about the no-fly-zone. But it seems to me that the Arab governments that backed calls for the UN to impose a no-fly-zone will simply use any foreign military action in Libya as justification for their own plans to intervene in the affairs of other states.

      Witness the way Saudi Arabia sent its troops to Bahrain [bbc.co.uk], presumably at the invitation of Bahrain's royal family. The governments in power in those two countries belong to a branch of Islam (Sunni [wikipedia.org]) different from those that dominat

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mjwx ( 966435 )

      Who will fill the power vacuum? Will the next party be worse than the prior? Is it worth the bloodshed and genocide?

      Bloodshed and Genocide?

      Extracting the Urine a bit aren't you.

      Do you honestly think that NATO forces are going to systematically wipe out a minority people?

      I'm against pointless military action as much as the next person with half a brain but seriously, genocide?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by cosm ( 1072588 )
        I was referring to the genocide of those who choose to up-rise being committed by those being up-risen against. Should have been more clear I suppose.
    • This is all at least a week too late. The rebels are doomed. As usual the UN has hand-wringing down to a science.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Radtoo ( 1646729 )

      With the intervention of western countries, do you think this resolution will influence further revolutions across the globe, fueled by the hope that the UN will come to the rescue if the targets of revolt become aggressors similar to Gadhafi?

      I wouldn't advise anyone starting a revolution unless they realistically can win. As far as Libya is concerned, the world's most powerful factions are now quite convinced that Gadaffi and/or his forces are too insane, too brutal, too much going against their ideals and interests, and too close nearby, and the rest does not even disagree. Protecting people as described in the resolution is hence already very close to meaning the destruction Gadaffi's armies, so it may actually benefit the rebels decisively.
      B

  • May Not Be Enough (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Huntr ( 951770 ) on Thursday March 17, 2011 @07:57PM (#35524870)
    While the rebels are happy with the resolution,according to CNN [cnn.com],

    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.

    • I hope this helps the civilians. They are the ones that need it. Gadhafi caused this by indiscriminately bombing everything. If he hadn't I doubt Russia or China would have let it though.
    • True, Gaddafi's primary advantage is that his ground forces are better trained and better armed, with tanks and artillery, so keeping his planes out of the air doesn't change the game that much. But what the U.N. signed off on isn't a no-fly zone, it's "all necessary measures short of an invasion to protect civilians and civilian-populated areas".

      I'm not a military expert, and I haven't read the full text of the resolution, but from the articles at the BBC and New York Times, it sounds like this could mean

      • Re:May Not Be Enough (Score:4, Informative)

        by CodeBuster ( 516420 ) on Thursday March 17, 2011 @10:30PM (#35525882)
        Well, with no air defenses and no air force Gadhafi would be powerless to prevent US Air Force B-52s [wikipedia.org], from knocking out every tank, vehicle and artillery piece caught out in the open. There is no way that a third rate military power, especially not Libya which has good flying weather and lots of flat terrain, can win in open battle against the United States Navy and Air Forces. It wouldn't remove Gadhafi from power directly, but it would completely wreck his ground forces, rendering him vulnerable to rebel counter-attacks. The rebels are begging us to even the odds and Gadhafi has been a thorn in our collective sides for decades now. We shouldn't miss this opportunity to give Gadhafi a black eye.

  • Gaddafi threatened to attack foreign civilian planes and boats over the mediterranean if any country attacked his forces.

    Surely that helped justify this UN resolution. Yeah, it's a conditional threat based on the result of the resolution, but the fact that he threatens foreign civilians just shows how deranged he is (and underscores the fact that he'll do anything to retain power, which obviously includes slaughtering his own people).

  • A day late and a dollar short (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DesScorp ( 410532 ) on Thursday March 17, 2011 @08:03PM (#35524922) Journal

    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.

    • Not only a no fly zone (Score:5, Informative)

      by rbarreira ( 836272 ) on Thursday March 17, 2011 @08:06PM (#35524960) Homepage

      It's not only a no fly zone authorization. As I understood it, this UN resolution permits everything except a foreign invasion of Lybia.

      Don't be surprised if planes are soon (or now) attacking Lybian military targets to weaken Gaddafi.

      • Probably also depends on what the countries themselves who are actually enforcing it want to do.

        However make no mistake if they decide that they want to smash his ground forces, they can. These days a modern military can use aircraft like precision artillery. The US has already proven this in Iraq and presumably other modern militaries can do the same. So it is no longer a case of "Air power is for smashing infrastructure but is no real threat to mobile forces." Now a few planes armed with the right munitio

      • It permits everything but foreign occupation. Pretty sure we are a go on any invasion. I could be wrong though.

      • Don't be surprised if planes are soon (or now) attacking Libyan military targets to weaken Gaddafi.

        As I read it, all military assets are now valid targets for NATO war planes and naval and land artillery. What has been expressly forbidden is putting boots on the ground.

        Standard UN rules apply, no deliberate targeting of civilian infrastructure. I have no illusions that a number of civilians will be killed or hurt as despotic leaders have this nasty habit of placing civilians in harms way to prevent the

      • As a US citizen, I very much hope aircraft are waiting on the ground for all the paperwork to go through and can get there quickly. Frankly, after Iraq and Afghanistan, I think we should just fark the paperwork after Gaddafi started murdering civilians, but heh, it's the US government.

        I'd also be satisfied with cruise missiles taking out SAM sites and airfields, although thats quite a bit more expensive than B-52s carpet bombing those sites.

    • But if any country did it unilaterally, they would be hated for eternity, a la the US in Iraq.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by arielCo ( 995647 )

        Yup, the US has more than enough on their plate and (hopefully) understood that they'd just provide a nice strawman to help the next SOB rise to power.

        Plus, Russia and China abstained instead of vetoing, which reads as reluctance. They may have been actively against in these past days, which would explain why the UNSC seemed to drag their feet on such an urgent issue.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by mjwx ( 966435 )

        But if any country did it unilaterally, they would be hated for eternity, a la the US in Iraq.

        No the US is hated for invading Iraq because it was unnecessary. Iraq was no threat to the west and all the US wrought was death and instability for Iraqi, you accomplished nothing of importance and destroyed the meagre livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. Shock horror, just like we predicted back in 2003.

        Afghanistan on the other hand, the US unilaterally went in, helped in an existing c

    • I think that any plane flying over Qadafi's forces could "draw fire" and justify some MASSIVE retaliation, effectively bringing an air strike on the heavy equipment that is giving them the big advantage. I really don't see how we can justify waiting for "authorisation" on this, considering the U.S. history of foreign policy.

    • This is exactly correct. It seems as if the international community deliberately waited until it was too late so that the rebels could never easily win.

      It's kind of like WWI, when the Austrians waited too long to attack the Serbians.

    • Too late? Hardly. Rebels regroup and are reborn as soon as an opportunity arises. Yesterday's dead rebels are tomorrow's worshiped martyrs. Having a consensus will make whatever actions later taken that much stronger, or at least give that appearance. This UN-bashing is kinda pathetic...
  • ... we'll just bomb 'em into the stone age. Actually, by the time we're done we'll need to bomb them forward into the stone age, likely. Because after all, if you want to institute a no-fly zone, you need to start by taking out the AA equipment so you can patrol the no-fly zone under your own terms.

    Of course, then we'll likely end up following the same trajectory that we started ourselves on with the first Iraq war under Bush I. Which of course led eventually to a new endless war started under Bush I

  • ...this one is all you. Have at it.

  • 'Everything short of an invasion' is rhetoric. This is a declaration of war. It violates Libya's sovereignty. From here on in, its not a question of who is right and who is wrong. It is a question of who applies more force to subdue whom.

    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. At other times, they would be excessive.
    • I also feel very strongly against this action. UN-sanctioned or no, it's a declaration of war, of which we have plenty right now. This is a civil war. Ghaddafi keeps his revolutionary guard well-paid, and his military is more than he needs to maintain control. The UN forces will only prolong the fighting, and it's very difficult to convince the world that the no-fly action has nothing to do with the price of oil.

      • it's a declaration of war, of which we have plenty right now. This is a civil war.

        Gadhafi has long been our enemy. He has American and British blood on his hands from the Berlin discotheque bombing [wikipedia.org] and the PanAm Flight 103 bombing over Lockerbie [wikipedia.org]. The Libyan air force has never been a match for the United States and we should hesitate to use this opportunity to destroy Gadhafi's third rate military. After all, the Libyans are still using equipment that the Russians and others have long since consigned to museums.

        Ghaddafi keeps his revolutionary guard well-paid,

        Money is no good if you aren't alive to spend it.

        and his military is more than he needs to maintain control.

        Not after we're done wreckin

    • Re:UN declares war on Libya (Score:4, Insightful)

      by White Flame ( 1074973 ) on Thursday March 17, 2011 @08:49PM (#35525318)

      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.

    • There are days when I hate being a westerner.

      As opposed to what? Serious question.

    • Re:UN declares war on Libya (Score:5, Insightful)

      by smellsofbikes ( 890263 ) on Thursday March 17, 2011 @09:43PM (#35525620) Journal

      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:UN declares war on Libya (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Thinine ( 869482 ) on Thursday March 17, 2011 @09:53PM (#35525676)
      Illegitimate nations like Libya have no sovereignty beyond what the international community grants them. Just because a guy uses military force to control an area doesn't give him any sort of right to that area. Right now there is no Libya beyond Ghaddafi. Only once he is out of the way and the people of that area are able to determine their own fate can it be said that they truly have anything resembling sovereignty.

    • You are missing the fact that the Arab League asked for this. Though I hate that we are putting our men in harm's way, this wasn't our decision.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by linumax ( 910946 )

      If in your impossible and rather ridiculous example the UK military started bombing cities one by one, I don't see any problem with UN going in to prevent slaughter. Why do you think that situation is any different?!

      They are stepping in to help overthrow Gadhafi. Regardless of whether you like him or not; regardless of whether you are happy with his rule in Libya, he holds that position of power, and you cannot apply your own constitution to overthrow his.

      I highly doubt Libyan constitution condones a gen

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Radtoo ( 1646729 )

      'Everything short of an invasion' is rhetoric. This is a declaration of war. It violates Libya's sovereignty. From here on in, its not a question of who is right and who is wrong. It is a question of who applies more force to subdue whom.[...]

      I think you missed the part where member states, like Libya, explicitly agreed to various things the UN charter demands from members.

      The UN is also not just some random faction subject to international law. No, it is essentially the international law, even though if its enforcement is only taken care of by willing volunteers.

    • Re:UN declares war on Libya (Score:5, Insightful)

      by caitsith01 ( 606117 ) on Thursday March 17, 2011 @11:40PM (#35526258) Journal

      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?

  • B2 and Tomahawk strikes tonight.. Thats my guess.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by cosm ( 1072588 )
      It was my impression that the imposition of a No-Fly Zone generally means the proverbial bomb-dropping is sanctioned and imminent. The rhetoric of the UN's member nations is very action oriented right now. Technicalities aside, I think next week's news will be footage of SAM installations getting pounded by AGM-114 Hellfires.
    • My bet's on a couple of UAV [wikipedia.org] missions. But, yes, expect this to be a long-range, remote-controlled war on the part of the Western powers that have signed up for the no-fly-zone.

  • WWIII? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by owlnation ( 858981 )
    At what point to we start to consider the past few years as World War III? Seems to me there's been an ever-increasing global Oil/Islamist War going on. We are pretty much fighting the same thing on 4 continents now. Do we have to wait for Oceania and Antarctica, or can we go ahead and call this WWIII now? Or, is is this just the preamble to the real thing -- it certainly feels like it is.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mano.m ( 1587187 )
      This isn't about Libya being Muslim. Libya's own ambassadors to the UN urged the SC to impose the no-fly zone. This isn't an imposition on the Libyan people as much as it is on Libya's government.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ddt ( 14627 )

      Perhaps once it's more than a tiny percentage of the size of WWII? Total estimated dead for WWII was 50M-70M. Total dead for all West-vs-Other conflicts in play right now is probably under 2M? We just have wider and more instantaneous coverage now.

      Darfur has little to do with Western intervention, and they are mopping up on the casualty count at 350k-ish.

  • They finally agreed.

    Now lets wait a few more weeks until more discussions take place, more slaps on the wrist are suggested and we can get the actual no fly zone by 2012.

  • Abstentions to the Security Council vote : Russia, China (no surprises so far), Brazil, India (mmh?), Germany (WTF?).

  • Nice, UN... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Greyfox ( 87712 ) on Thursday March 17, 2011 @09:58PM (#35525706) Homepage Journal
    Can you guys now get to work on a resolution demanding that the USA not invade Iraq and Vietnam, and one demanding that the Germans withdraw from Poland? I mean as long as you're passing resolutions that would have saved lives had they been timelier? And maybe for an encore you could pass a resolution curing cancer after everyone has died of it.

    As much as I despise the unilateral actions of the previous administration, I bet W. would have parked an aircraft carrier off the coast of Libya the first day and shot down anything that moved after that.

Slashdot Top Deals

"I got everybody to pay up front...then I blew up their planet." "Now why didn't I think of that?" -- Post Bros. Comics

Close