×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

501 comments

Circlejerk (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35524822)

US controls the UN, US backs dictator for many years until he turns, UN doesn't like dictator now.

Makes sense.

Re:Circlejerk (0, Troll)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 3 years ago | (#35524886)

Woohoo! Another success like Kosovo and Iraq!

Too bad about the dead babies and depleted uranium poisoning...

Re:Circlejerk (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35524918)

Woohoo! Another success like Kosovo and Iraq!

Too bad about the dead babies and depleted uranium poisoning...

As long as they're dune coons it doesn't matter. Gotta feed the military industrial complex no matter what! It says FEED ME, MORE MONEY MORE POLITICAL POWER ARRRGGGHHH SO HUNGRY!! Of course we will, to get them evil terrists or whatever other national enemy we have these days. Doing otherwise would just be .. unpatriotic.

Re:Circlejerk (0)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 3 years ago | (#35525200)

"Enemies are necessary for the wheels of the U.S. military machine to turn."
-- John Stockwell, former CIA official and author

Re:Circlejerk (1)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 3 years ago | (#35525316)

"Enemies are necessary for the wheels of the U.S. military machine to turn."
-- John Stockwell, former CIA official and author

Forgive me for being off topic here, but...

HOLY CRAP! I used to work with John Stockwell. I have a copy of his book "In Search of Enemies" that I was never able to give back to him. He was my supervisor at a job we had at a "tech support sweat shop". He was the manager in charge of call monitoring/quality control and I was the guy who listened to all the tapes and graded the techs.

I could tell stories, but it's best if I don't.

Re:Circlejerk (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35525442)

"Enemies are necessary for the wheels of the U.S. military machine to turn."
-- John Stockwell, former CIA official and author

Forgive me for being off topic here, but...

HOLY CRAP! I used to work with John Stockwell. I have a copy of his book "In Search of Enemies" that I was never able to give back to him. He was my supervisor at a job we had at a "tech support sweat shop". He was the manager in charge of call monitoring/quality control and I was the guy who listened to all the tapes and graded the techs.

I could tell stories, but it's best if I don't.

Aren't you just special.

Re:Circlejerk (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35524998)

*Ring* *Ring* It's 3 AM. Japan is calling. Libya is calling. Egypt is calling. Anybody home? Hello?!? McFly!!?!?!

Re:Circlejerk (3, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 3 years ago | (#35525456)

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:Circlejerk (1)

pookemon (909195) | more than 3 years ago | (#35525516)

Umm - what, on earth, makes you think that the US supports or has ever supported Qadhafi? You've obviously just been saying this for so long now that you simply don't bother to check who it is you're talking about before you post.

News For Nerds (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35524846)

How the fuck is this story related to news for nerds? Anybody can read this story on all the mainstream news sites. There's absolutely no reason for this to be on a site ostensibly dedicated to "news for nerds".

I feel bad to civilians there, but's lets face it, the Libyan people don't matter to the outside world.

Re:News For Nerds (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35524868)

don't be a prick.

Re:News For Nerds (2)

Hartree (191324) | more than 3 years ago | (#35524878)

Too late. He already is.

Re:News For Nerds (5, Insightful)

tetrahedrassface (675645) | more than 3 years ago | (#35525098)

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.

Re:News For Nerds (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35525178)

Prick, n. - 1. Someone who tells you the straight truth when your personal cowardice would prefer to whitewash it.

A REAL prick would be glad that the Libyan people don't matter to the outside world. GGP indicated no such sentiment. Therefore, you're a judgmental bastard who cannot handle a direct statement of the manifest fuckin' truth. People like you are part of the problem. You would rather attack the messenger than work to change the truth of the message. Most of the problems in the world boil down to this irrational gutless impulse.

Re:News For Nerds (3, Interesting)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | more than 3 years ago | (#35524972)

There are a couple of theories. One, it gives hope to people in other nations with horribly incompetent governments, and two, the Libyan revolution is the third in a series partially instigated by Facebook users, which speaks to the burgeoning power of the internet in affecting world politics.

Re:News For Nerds (1)

the linux geek (799780) | more than 3 years ago | (#35525000)

Internet access in Libya is close to nonexistant. The influence of the Internet on this rebellion was, at best, negligible.

Re:News For Nerds (1)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | more than 3 years ago | (#35525116)

Perhaps, but it was still indirectly precipitated by the Egyptian and Tunisian revolutions, which were Internet-triggered. It's followup, and it could still have results down the road.

Re:News For Nerds (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35525336)

Perhaps, but it was still indirectly precipitated by the Egyptian and Tunisian revolutions, which were Internet-triggered. It's followup, and it could still have results down the road.

Could, would, should, might, maybe, perhaps. Insert fact-free conjecture here.

Face it. What you said was wrong. Play it off some more if you want. We all know women never admit when they're wrong no matter how obvious that fact is to everyone else.

Don't want to be thought the typical female? Don't act the part. None of us are gonna get any pussy from you (and you're probably an undesirable fatass anyway though your lack of logic suggests maybe this isn't the deal) so really what is your incentive to play coy? Just admit you were wrong.

Re:News For Nerds (1)

akanouras (1431981) | more than 3 years ago | (#35525424)

Face it. What you said was wrong. Play it off some more if you want. We all know women never admit when they're wrong no matter how obvious that fact is to everyone else.

Don't want to be thought the typical female? Don't act the part. None of us are gonna get any pussy from you (and you're probably an undesirable fatass anyway though your lack of logic suggests maybe this isn't the deal) so really what is your incentive to play coy? Just admit you were wrong.

Someone just lost yet another chance at getting some...

Must be getting really frustrating for you, eh?

Re:News For Nerds (2)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#35525376)

Not triggered, facilitated, maybe, but triggered? No.. The misery is what triggered it. And another thing, this ain't over, not even close.. in any of these places. And check out how we are supporting the suppression in Bahrain, for some reason that's off the radar... There's still a big ol' shoe, hanging by its frayed laces..

Similar Revolts (4, Interesting)

cosm (1072588) | more than 3 years ago | (#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 (4, Insightful)

Hartree (191324) | more than 3 years ago | (#35524890)

A lot of very good questions.

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

Re:Similar Revolts (-1, Troll)

MichaelKristopeit413 (2018846) | more than 3 years ago | (#35524956)

who is "we"?

you are NOTHING.

Re:Similar Revolts (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35525014)

Didn't you mean to say, "you are completely pathetic"?

Re:Similar Revolts (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35525204)

you and the nigger bareback fucking your asshole, of course. cry some more, feeb.

Re:Similar Revolts (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35525034)

No, the answer is, "Tune in tomorrow for another episode of As the World Burns.. brought to you by Esso - Put a Muslim in your Tank"

Re:Similar Revolts (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 3 years ago | (#35525162)

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 (3, Insightful)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 3 years ago | (#35525294)

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 (5, Insightful)

Pharmboy (216950) | more than 3 years ago | (#35525408)

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.

fueled by the hope that the UN will (0)

kdsible (2019794) | more than 3 years ago | (#35524964)

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...

After all these years of doing business with Mr Gadhafi, and now they want to remove him because they are concerned about civilians? I suppose they will impose the same to protect the civilians of Bahrain because of course they want to protect the civilians. I recall the UN did such a good job in Rawanda after the fact. A useless organization of Members (those with Veto) and participants (those who have no choice).

Re:fueled by the hope that the UN will (5, Informative)

the linux geek (799780) | more than 3 years ago | (#35525012)

Oh, shut up. The US was perfectly willing to remove Qaddafi in the 80's, and made a credible attempt to kill him. It's been held back by the Europeans, the UN, and the Arab League until it was politically chic to oppose Qaddafi, and only now are they okay with such things.

Re:Similar Revolts (5, Insightful)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 3 years ago | (#35524974)

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.

Re:Similar Revolts (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35525160)

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.

Yeah, cause everytime gas prices go up the Saudi princes give everyone working the derriks a raise.

Re:Similar Revolts (2)

mano.m (1587187) | more than 3 years ago | (#35525354)

He isn't talking about high prices because of the suppliers; he means high prices due to taxes that would discourage oil use and encourage the use of alternative sources.

Re:Similar Revolts (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35525228)

You probably wouldn't be willing to pay that price for long. If gas is $10/gallon for any appreciable amount of time in the US, it's probably just as if not more expensive elsewhere. And since gas prices are so tightly linked to the cost of everything else, there would be huge economic impacts around the world.

"Yay, everyone is free!" will be fantastic for about 15 days of $10/gallon gas, and then economic crisis will occur, and the places with oil (read: all those countries with nasty dictatorships fueled by the fact they have oil money) will quickly find themselves in much worse situations than they are now. Because for a lot of those poor people, the difference between democracy and what they have now just isn't that impactful in their lives, while the difference between democracy and being dead is, well, pretty impactful.

Re:Similar Revolts (3, Insightful)

cosm (1072588) | more than 3 years ago | (#35525296)

Not to mention, when gas goes up, diesel goes up. Then freight cost goes up. Then food cost goes up. Then everything goes up. The economy goes down, and pray your ready for all hell when the country is on the breaking point of mass food riots.

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:Similar Revolts (5, Insightful)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#35525434)

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?

That works until you think (3, Informative)

abulafia (7826) | more than 3 years ago | (#35525392)

After about five minutes of reflection, you realize that this instability is inherent in a changing environment,

Gas ain't going down. Burning dinosaurs4cash is a time limited model, which is why people are so pissed off about it.

What is interesting is that, hey, we give proles communicatn tech, and whaddiya know, they use it. Well, it seems, and that's going to get better. The cypherpunks were not stupid.

Re:Similar Revolts (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35525396)

On the other hand, the Green Freedom [blogspot.com] concept means that, in the long-term at least, gas should never cost more than $5/gal because that's about how much it costs to produce it just using atmospheric CO2 and fission reactors. I say in the long-term, because building such a facility would likely be a large construction project and take years if not over a decade.

Re:Similar Revolts (1, Insightful)

amiga3D (567632) | more than 3 years ago | (#35525468)

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:Similar Revolts (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35525358)

Or you could start walking or biking and wave, smile, and say hello to those brothers and sisters you pass on the street. It amazes me how kind people are in person and how much of a jerk they are behind 3000 lbs of machine.

Re:Similar Revolts (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35524986)

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...

It's not just social media or even just the web that's the driving force. It's the sum of all media - newspapers, telephone, cinema, radio, television, fax machines, mobile phones, the internet...

At some point in the mid 1980's the technology reached a critical mass where most people outside of North Korea had a relatively accurate picture of life in the free and democratic countries. They became envious of the sort of plain ordinary, normal life that most of us lead. The Soviet Union leaders tried to counter it with "Glasnost", but that little taste of normality only spurred the people's struggle for total normality. Really, wherever you go today in the unfree/undemocratic parts of the world, the battle cry of the the people is, quite literally, "normality".

Re:Similar Revolts (2)

ashvagan (885082) | more than 3 years ago | (#35525240)

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 revolutions, as some would believe. As far as "our" cold war efforts are concerned, those efforts actually led to the installation of dictatorship in the middle-east in the first place, helping the cause and control of US. Yes, it is better for these countries to actually start building a political infrastructure as these kind of oppressive monarchies can't go on forever. The instability will be there, but it all really depends on how well they fair in avoiding a clash within themselves. Of course, only time will tell.

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

Bruce Perens (3872) | more than 3 years ago | (#35525246)

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:Similar Revolts (2)

dlevitan (132062) | more than 3 years ago | (#35525352)

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 the government there has too much public support even with Ahmadinejad in power.

Re:Similar Revolts (1)

Nyder (754090) | more than 3 years ago | (#35525444)

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.

More intervention not more revolution (1)

Troll-Under-D'Bridge (1782952) | more than 3 years ago | (#35525548)

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 dominate the pro-democracy protests in Bahrain and some parts of Saudi Arabia (Shia [wikipedia.org] Muslims). So here we see foreign military intervention being used in support of an unpopular regime as against the possibility of foreign military intervention in Libya being used to support the removal of an unpopular regime.

May Not Be Enough (3, Insightful)

Huntr (951770) | more than 3 years ago | (#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.

Missing the point (1)

Demonantis (1340557) | more than 3 years ago | (#35525300)

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.

Re:May Not Be Enough (1)

flyingsquid (813711) | more than 3 years ago | (#35525476)

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 damn near anything. Air strikes by aircraft and helicopter gunships. Cruise missile strikes. Artillery barrages from naval vessels. Arms to rebels, such as rifles and machine guns. Jamming of Libyan communications. Intel sharing. Military advisors. And back to that no-fly zone: while Gaddafi's planes aren't a game-changer, establishing a no-fly zone or other military air operations over Libya demands air superiority, and that requires attacks against Gaddafi's radar installations, surface-to-air missile batteries, and command bunkers. That many explosions going off in Tripoli is going to have a huge psychological impact.

It's like Roman legions all over again. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35524884)

So all of a sudden these people are libeled and slandered to be civilized by UN forces?

Do the Chinese extend a blanket of protection over me when I'm busy trying to kick State of California County of Orange Social Services off my porch because I already taught my children Algebra-2/AMERICAN HISTORY/Chem-Physics before their 8th-grade Private School Graduation that they don't need to participate in the High Schrool System?

Seems like inquisition, interrogation, conquest, colonization, and rape all hide behind the words Freedom and Liberty and Justice and Humanitarian Aid that whole countries are kept in the dark ages like Africa because nobody knows what it means to actually rule and live their own lives: armies are nothing more than rule by lawyers through militant judges.

Russia and China (0, Troll)

z-j-y (1056250) | more than 3 years ago | (#35524906)

> Russia and China - which often oppose the use of force against a sovereign country as they believe it sets a dangerous precedent - abstained rather than using their power of veto as permanent members.

That's a load of crap, Russia and China don't oppose use of force against a sovereign country.

Just call it what it is, they are fucking evil governments, and they have sympathy towards other evil governments. And they don't want UN to turn against themselves one day.

Yeah yeah, some euro-trash american-left will immediately come out and equate these countries with the evilness of USA. Go fuck yourselves.

Re:Russia and China (2)

the linux geek (799780) | more than 3 years ago | (#35525036)

The idea of the UN turning against its members with permanent vetoes - in this case, both of who are on the edge of superpower status - is hilarious.

Re:Russia and China (4, Insightful)

Clsid (564627) | more than 3 years ago | (#35525090)

Oh they are evil! Run for your lives! After Kosovo, Russia is very reluctant to agree on using force based on humanitarian grounds. It is embedded in their rationale now. As for the Chinese, they have a history of not supporting intervention on what they consider other countries internal affairs, unless they are asked to. On the other hand, the Chinese employ 36000 people in the construction sector in Lybia with contracts worth $2.67 billion. It is the same reason why the "West" would not do anything in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, UAE (slave labor and other human rights issues). Every country has their own interests to look after and it is perfectly rational even if it doesn't fill any high moral standards. Calling something good or evil is just being stupid, things are not black or white in the real world.

Re:Russia and China (1)

rikkards (98006) | more than 3 years ago | (#35525094)

I don't know if it is that. I think Russia and China know who the winners of the Qaddafi vs the Rebels will be and it won't be the rebels. So they don't want to piss the winners off.

Re:Russia and China (2)

hsmith (818216) | more than 3 years ago | (#35525112)

China isn't abstaining, they are directly funding the US and its wars. China has no issue with this, in fact - they encourage it.

Gaddafi's threats against FOREIGN civilians (1)

rbarreira (836272) | more than 3 years ago | (#35524920)

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).

Re:Gaddafi's threats against FOREIGN civilians (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35525286)

Gaddafi is know for his grandiose rants so it was probably not taken too seriously. On the other hand we know from the Lockerbie bombing that he is capable of downing civilian jets.

I think what's happened is that France and Britain together with the US have decided, in light of the Arab League's decision to back a no-flying zone, that the prospect of getting rid of Gaddafi is worth the political risk. If he is replaced by a half-decent democratic system we could get rid of one of the worst sources of illegal immigrants to Europe and get access to the Libyan natural resources. Sure they have oil, but they also have almost 2 million square kilometers of empty desert land that could presumably be filled with wind turbines and solar panels. Add some undersea power cables to Europe...

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

DesScorp (410532) | more than 3 years ago | (#35524922)

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 (4, Informative)

rbarreira (836272) | more than 3 years ago | (#35524960)

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.

Re:Not only a no fly zone (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35525092)

How many years will it be until we civilians can remotely control those planes. I can just dreamily imagine how popular commercialized Predator drones would be. "Protect freedom! Earn $100 for every terrorist killed! 1 hr Predator flight time @ $2,000 USD."

Ya I'm not completely clearn on that (2)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 3 years ago | (#35525222)

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 munitions can smash a division of troops.

Will that happen? No idea. However if Gaddafi makes good on his threat and fires on civilian traffic in the med, you can bet it will. His military will be reduced in size in a big hurry.

Re:Not only a no fly zone (2)

Palmsie (1550787) | more than 3 years ago | (#35525510)

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

Re:A day late and a dollar short (2)

the linux geek (799780) | more than 3 years ago | (#35524990)

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

Re:A day late and a dollar short (1)

arielCo (995647) | more than 3 years ago | (#35525464)

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:A day late and a dollar short (1)

conureman (748753) | more than 3 years ago | (#35525048)

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.

Re:A day late and a dollar short (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35525368)

They don't need to "draw fire". A No-Fly Zone means taking out anything that's a threat to aircraft. Pre-emptively.

Re:A day late and a dollar short (1)

Stargoat (658863) | more than 3 years ago | (#35525314)

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.

Smoke and mirrors (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35524950)

Let's just hope this is not too little, too late because he has shown no mercy for opponents. Meanwhile, rebels are having a few problems lately.
However capturing Benghazi is still not the horizon. The city is too big to be taken easily and I believe that Gaddafi is reluctant about going in and loosing a lot of weaponry and people, especially without the air supremacy.
If he's smart, he can still keep oil fields (somehow it seems that UN resolution was "postponed" until that town is recaptured).

Re:Smoke and mirrors (1)

conureman (748753) | more than 3 years ago | (#35525214)

My highly developed cynicism sez we let Tunisia, Pakistan and Egypt off the hook because we had an understanding with the new "Rulers". West Point Man Qadafi needed to stay put until we could cut a deal with whoever is running things in Bengazi. The Saads just want to keep OPEC stable, and that's good for the Oil Men. Code word is "Stability".

Stay out !! (0)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#35524976)

You're not wanted... This is bullshit.. They're only trying to reopen the money pipe. Go help the folks Bahrain.. Oh wait.. That's different

So instead of an invasion ... (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 3 years ago | (#35525002)

... 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 II and continued further under Bush III. But then again we all love the military-industrial complex and we will stop at nothing to aid it. Sure, we could balance our budget, have the greatest schools and health care in the world, but really, war is just so much more fun.

Re:So instead of an invasion ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35525148)

Considering that the entire US defense budget is equal to around half of the current federal deficit, I think you are overestimating the potential benefits of cutting off the military-industrial complex.

Re:So instead of an invasion ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35525176)

... 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 II and continued further under Bush III. But then again we all love the military-industrial complex and we will stop at nothing to aid it. Sure, we could balance our budget, have the greatest schools and health care in the world, but really, war is just so much more fun.

The Military industrial complex brought you the ability to post your stupid rant. Since you think the no fly zone is a bad idea why don't you and your family move to Libya, hopefully you'll be safe but if not well...at least we won't have to listen to you beat the already dead horse again...and again.......and again...

Re:So instead of an invasion ... (2)

pitterpatter (1397479) | more than 3 years ago | (#35525212)

we'll just bomb 'em into the stone age.

Then they'll really be screwed. Do you know how hard it is to make stone tools when all you've got is sand?

If we can't liberate the Libyans from dictatorship (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35525080)

... maybe at least we can put together a regular expression so the current ruler's name can be full text searched.

How about

((Aa)l-)?[KQG](h|')?[auo]d[d](ao)((f(f)?)|(ph))[yi]

Re:If we can't liberate the Libyans from dictators (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35525242)

Now you have 2 problems,

You do realize that "d[d](ao)" means you will have a literal "ddao" in there? And that nobody spells it Aal-Ghaddaoffi?

So I guess you have 3 problems. (One of them is that you're fucking useless with regexes.)

I think what you meant with that was:
([Aa]l-)?[KQG][h']?[auo]dd?[ao](ff?|ph)[yi]

UN declares war on Libya (2, Interesting)

Wolfling1 (1808594) | more than 3 years ago | (#35525110)

'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. The question of whether it would be legal or not would hinge on the actions of individuals in the military or police. Not with the over-arching governmental body.

Lets be really clear about what the UN are doing here. 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. To do so is an act of war.

There are days when I hate being a westerner.

Re:UN declares war on Libya (1)

mandelbr0t (1015855) | more than 3 years ago | (#35525192)

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.

Re:UN declares war on Libya (3, Insightful)

White Flame (1074973) | more than 3 years ago | (#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.

angry#gasprices (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35525138)

These little military adventures are raping us at the gas station. Let those fuckers kill each other. Who fucking cares really? Are we so hypocritical to believe in this crap?! A couple of months ago Gaddhafi was like, one of our friends , and now we turn around and stab his back because of bs democracy?! The propaganda stuff that's being pumped out here in America trumps whatever shit they had in Nazi Germany.

    I want the gas prices at the pump to go down and bullshit democracy makes it go up!!!!!

3.2.1... (1)

headhot (137860) | more than 3 years ago | (#35525156)

B2 and Tomahawk strikes tonight.. Thats my guess.

Re:3.2.1... (1)

cosm (1072588) | more than 3 years ago | (#35525254)

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.

oil (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35525168)

cut this moronic crap. this is because oil interests and it took so long for the UN because the permanent members were arguing on what fields go to what country.

WWIII? (1, Interesting)

owlnation (858981) | more than 3 years ago | (#35525206)

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:WWIII? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35525362)

Good. I'll be glad when war reaches out and touches slashdot.

Re:WWIII? (1)

mano.m (1587187) | more than 3 years ago | (#35525374)

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:WWIII? (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35525418)

There will never be a WWIII. That requires two sides. One good, one evil. We have too much access to the worlds events to collectively believe in a unified enemy. Sure people try, but in the end most people don't fall for it. Each situation has its own details... On top of that we have found a way of masking the cost of war so it isn't relevant to require the mass support that allows for rations.

Re:WWIII? (1)

ddt (14627) | more than 3 years ago | (#35525432)

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.

Afghanistan Part 2 (0)

danbuter (2019760) | more than 3 years ago | (#35525216)

I hope this turns into another Afghanistan, and we get stuck there for 10 years. The US deserves it, because we just HAVE to be the world's policeman.

NUKE EM !! NUKE EM NOW !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35525226)

That'll get the CNN to cover Libya instead of some little island nobody REALLY cares about.

Oh Great (1)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 3 years ago | (#35525322)

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.

He hasn't won yet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35525324)

Stalingrad anyone? Benghazi can hold out indefinitely with the help of world, it's a rebel city with a lot of people, all they need is small arms and windows to shoot them out of.

Incidently, I would be ashamed to be an Indian or Brazilian after their abstentions in this vote. Are they really no better than Russia and China?

Gadhafi's military rank (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35525348)

This may be a dumb question, but why is Gadhafi only a colonel? Couldn't he just promote himself?

But, But...I thought... (1)

bricko (1052210) | more than 3 years ago | (#35525452)

I thought Bush got all kinds of hell for doing this exact thing to Saddam after he violated the no fly resolution SEVENTEEN TIMES.... But I just remembered....now we have a Democrat for president ....so never mind.....its all OK. At least Obama has managed the impossible-seeming feat of making a President of France appear as decisive and effective.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...