Beta
×

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!

UN Intervention Begins In Libya

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the at-least-there's-no-war dept.

The Military 688

maliamnon writes "US, French, and British forces began enforcing a UN resolution (1973/2011) to defend civilians in Libya today. French aircraft are attacking tanks, while the US and possibly UK are supporting the operation with cruise missiles from sea." Update: 03/19 22:34 GMT by T : Adds reader bloggerkg: "More than 110 Tomahawk missiles fired from American and British ships and submarines hit about 20 Libyan air and missile defense targets in western portions of the country, US Vice Adm. William Gortney said at a Pentagon briefing. The US will conduct a damage assessment of the sites, which include SA-5 missiles and communications facilities. A senior US military official, who was not authorized to speak on the record, said the missiles landed near Misrata and Tripoli, the capital and Gadhafi's stronghold."

cancel ×

688 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Yep.... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35544512)

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

Re:Yep.... (1)

mykos (1627575) | more than 3 years ago | (#35544730)

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

What's the goal of it? (0)

f1vlad (1253784) | more than 3 years ago | (#35544516)

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

Re:What's the goal of it? (5, Informative)

preaction (1526109) | more than 3 years ago | (#35544534)

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

Re:What's the goal of it? (0, Flamebait)

ggramm (2021034) | more than 3 years ago | (#35544578)

"Oil"

*fixed that for you

Re:What's the goal of it? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35544666)

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

Re:What's the goal of it? (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35544786)

That's because the decision to protect or not protect civilians is essentially 100% correlated with either oil or some sort of important political motive. Humanitarianism is not a factor in the equation -- if it were, we'd invade Africa.

Re:What's the goal of it? (4, Interesting)

Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) | more than 3 years ago | (#35544858)

> Humanitarianism is not a factor in the equation

Have you ever actually met UN prosecutors? Or policymakers? There are a lot of bottom-dwellers on the world stage, yes, and a lot of really self-involved people in power throughout the world. But there are also a lot of really good people involved in the work, and a lot of really competent people who believe in what they're doing, and there are people who--though they are self-involved--genuinely care about whether or not other people are dying.

Humanitarianism is a factor in the equation. It's just not the only factor. Wars cost a lost of money and lives, and UN intervention is sometimes good and sometimes bad. If you think they don't care whether their presence helps or hurts, you don't know them at all.

Re:What's the goal of it? (0)

arielCo (995647) | more than 3 years ago | (#35544680)

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

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

Re:What's the goal of it? (2)

preaction (1526109) | more than 3 years ago | (#35544866)

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

Re:What's the goal of it? (0)

arielCo (995647) | more than 3 years ago | (#35544886)

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

Does that include building a time machine? (0)

unassimilatible (225662) | more than 3 years ago | (#35544678)

And going back 30 years to prevent the civilian repression to date? Or even the last two weeks of slaughter?

And wasn't this one of Bush's rationales for invading Iraq, i.e., humanitarian? Seems like the French suddenly find this rationale important now that the US wasn't leading the charge. Or is it that the French don't have the same cushy oil deals with the Colonel that they did with Saddam?

Re:Does that include building a time machine? (2)

preaction (1526109) | more than 3 years ago | (#35544920)

So because we didn't do anything in the past, we should never do anything in the present or future? We (the United States) are not allowed to admit we made a mistake in Iraq and try to fix that mistake by stopping our unilateral regime-change actions and instead joining a UN action against Gaddafi? That it is the French and US providing the forces does not change that it is a UN mission.

Re:What's the goal of it? (4, Insightful)

werewolf1031 (869837) | more than 3 years ago | (#35544540)

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

Or so it seems based on the resolution.

Re:What's the goal of it? (-1, Troll)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 3 years ago | (#35544566)

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

Re:What's the goal of it? (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35544594)

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

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

Re:What's the goal of it? (-1, Troll)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 3 years ago | (#35544640)

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

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

Re:What's the goal of it? (5, Insightful)

WilliamTheBat (1762376) | more than 3 years ago | (#35544576)

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

Re:What's the goal of it? (1)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 3 years ago | (#35544606)

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

Re:What's the goal of it? (1)

Sir_Sri (199544) | more than 3 years ago | (#35544756)

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

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

A very sad day (0)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#35544518)

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

The horror The horror

Re:A very sad day (4, Insightful)

gtall (79522) | more than 3 years ago | (#35544572)

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

Re:A very sad day (2, Insightful)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#35544676)

...knock over a ruthless dictator...

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

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

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

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

Re:A very sad day (1)

WilliamTheBat (1762376) | more than 3 years ago | (#35544738)

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

Re:A very sad day (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35544740)

Right, because peaceful protesting in Libya worked so well.

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

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

Re:A very sad day (1)

geminidomino (614729) | more than 3 years ago | (#35544870)

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

Re:A very sad day (5, Insightful)

Urza9814 (883915) | more than 3 years ago | (#35544808)

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

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

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

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

Re:A very sad day (2)

R3d M3rcury (871886) | more than 3 years ago | (#35544958)

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

Depends on when you ask.

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

Re:A very sad day (4, Insightful)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 3 years ago | (#35544864)

War is the solution to everything for you people. Horrible

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

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

Re:A very sad day (2)

CarbonShell (1313583) | more than 3 years ago | (#35544798)

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

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

Re:A very sad day (1)

Renraku (518261) | more than 3 years ago | (#35544938)

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

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

Re:A very sad day (1)

ThunderBird89 (1293256) | more than 3 years ago | (#35544804)

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

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

Dictators yesterday and today (1)

Kohath (38547) | more than 3 years ago | (#35544820)

Long, long ago, I heard that it was wrong to fight ruthless dictators in oil-rich countries. It was wrong even if the dictator in question had viciously attacked his own people, supported terrorism and harbored terrorists. It was a sure sign of Western racism because the people who lived in that country aren't white. Even the fact that the UN had imposed sanctions against that country, like they have against Libya, was not a mitigating factor.

Dictators in non-white, oil-rich countries should be free to hurt whomever they want, for whatever reason they want, in any manner they want, inside their own country and, using terrorist attacks, in other countries. That's what we learned. But apparently the lessons were forgotten.

Maybe it's because the anti-war protests were mostly phony [mudvillegazette.com] all along.

They told me if I voted for John McCain that these war policies wouldn't change, that we'd still have troops in Iraq and Afganistan for years, and that the President might even attack other oil-rich countries. And they were right!

Re:Dictators yesterday and today (2)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 3 years ago | (#35544888)

Amazingly, not all wars are created equal. In fact, not all wars in oil-rich Arab countries are created equal. I know this might be difficult for you to understand.

Re:Dictators yesterday and today (0)

Kohath (38547) | more than 3 years ago | (#35544932)

Especially when it is asserted with zero supporting arguments.

Re:A very sad day (1)

melted (227442) | more than 3 years ago | (#35544830)

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

Maybe it's because Bush isn't leading it (1)

unassimilatible (225662) | more than 3 years ago | (#35544694)

And the French don't have cushy oil deals with Gaddafi as they did with Saddam, the real reason Chirac opposed the Iraq War so fervently. There are wars for oil, and there are anti-war movements for oil as well.

Take down Iran too... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35544522)

...might as well, right?

protests (-1, Troll)

dlt074 (548126) | more than 3 years ago | (#35544532)

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

hypocrites

Re:protests (4, Insightful)

preaction (1526109) | more than 3 years ago | (#35544542)

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

Re:protests (1)

Vinegar Joe (998110) | more than 3 years ago | (#35544644)

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

Re:protests (3, Insightful)

gilleain (1310105) | more than 3 years ago | (#35544908)

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

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

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

Re:protests (1)

geek (5680) | more than 3 years ago | (#35544650)

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

Re:protests (0)

dlt074 (548126) | more than 3 years ago | (#35544724)

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

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

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

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

oh that's right, you're HYPOCRITES!

Wait a minute (1)

unassimilatible (225662) | more than 3 years ago | (#35544760)

Bush did make the humanitarian case against Hussein as well. In fact, Saddam did gas thousands of his own people. And that questionable intelligence was propagated by every major intel agency in the world, not just the US. Saddam was as ruthless as dictators get. His idea of a fun Saturday night was to break out VHS tapes of dissidents being tortured, with some Jiffy Pop.

I think the Iraq War was a political disaster, and would have advised against it on those grounds, but was morally just, WMD's or not. Just as you can't justify a warrant by what you find after the search, you can't impute 20/20 hindsight on probable cause after the search either. Saddam did have like 16 months to cover his tracks before the US invasion. Just sayin'...

Re:Wait a minute (1)

metlin (258108) | more than 3 years ago | (#35544878)

I think the Iraq War was a political disaster, and would have advised against it on those grounds, but was morally just, WMD's or not.

HAHAHAHA! Thanks for a great laugh. So, we are in the process of enforcing your morals on the rest of the world?

Apart from the fact that our intervention caused Iraq to splinter into factions and result in tens of thousands of deaths because of sectarian violence, the moral high-ground does not fly when we're guilty of far worse.

Re:protests (0)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 3 years ago | (#35544788)

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

Re:protests (1)

reboot246 (623534) | more than 3 years ago | (#35544794)

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

Missiles for oil? (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35544536)

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

Re:Missiles for oil? (2)

gtall (79522) | more than 3 years ago | (#35544586)

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

Re:Missiles for oil? (1)

ELCouz (1338259) | more than 3 years ago | (#35544634)

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

Re:Missiles for oil? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35544660)

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

Re:Missiles for oil? (1)

mikael_j (106439) | more than 3 years ago | (#35544772)

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

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

how times have changed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35544548)

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

The US shouldn't be there (1, Interesting)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 3 years ago | (#35544552)

Everything we touch turns to merd'.
And eventually, when it fails, fingers will be pointed at the US as a "world tyrant". We should let the EU handle this one, by themselves. Or the Arab League

Re:The US shouldn't be there (2)

WilliamTheBat (1762376) | more than 3 years ago | (#35544614)

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

Re:The US shouldn't be there (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35544892)

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

Re:The US shouldn't be there (4, Interesting)

aBaldrich (1692238) | more than 3 years ago | (#35544618)

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

Re:The US shouldn't be there (1, Funny)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 3 years ago | (#35544884)

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

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

Re:The US shouldn't be there (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35544900)

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

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

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

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

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

Re:The US shouldn't be there (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35544630)

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

Re:The US shouldn't be there (1)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 3 years ago | (#35544710)

Are you sure? [deathandtaxesmag.com]

It's time to.. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35544560)

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

Re:It's time to.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35544764)

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

The Response From Libya? (0)

earthloop (449575) | more than 3 years ago | (#35544562)

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

Bombing for peace... (5, Insightful)

camcorder (759720) | more than 3 years ago | (#35544570)

...is like fucking for virginity!

Re:Bombing for peace... (5, Funny)

GuldKalle (1065310) | more than 3 years ago | (#35544580)

How else are you gonna make more virgins? :)

Re:Bombing for peace... (1)

Shihar (153932) | more than 3 years ago | (#35544682)

...is like fucking for virginity!

Worth a shot? Better than fucking yourself?

Re:Bombing for peace... (5, Insightful)

Nidi62 (1525137) | more than 3 years ago | (#35544712)

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

Re:Bombing for peace... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35544942)

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

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

Si Vis Pacem (1)

ThunderBird89 (1293256) | more than 3 years ago | (#35544902)

Para Bellum!

NO BLOOD FOR OIL!!! (0, Flamebait)

Vinegar Joe (998110) | more than 3 years ago | (#35544612)

DAMN YOU GEORGE BUSH!!!

Wait a sec........

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

Never mind.

Re:NO BLOOD FOR OIL!!! (3, Informative)

metlin (258108) | more than 3 years ago | (#35544868)

Yes, except that this was a UN resolution.

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

How long before (0)

dorpus (636554) | more than 3 years ago | (#35544638)

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

Re:How long before (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35544708)

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

Re:How long before (1)

ThunderBird89 (1293256) | more than 3 years ago | (#35544922)

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

And... (0)

C0R1D4N (970153) | more than 3 years ago | (#35544672)

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

Re:And... (2)

Nidi62 (1525137) | more than 3 years ago | (#35544732)

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

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

Re:And... (4, Insightful)

mikael_j (106439) | more than 3 years ago | (#35544744)

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

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

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

Re:And... (5, Informative)

PeterBrett (780946) | more than 3 years ago | (#35544962)

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

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

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

Canada is there too! (1)

spammeister (586331) | more than 3 years ago | (#35544684)

Canada is there guys, no really, I saw it on TV.

We're bringing the free beer and good times!

Re:Canada is there too! (1)

mrclisdue (1321513) | more than 3 years ago | (#35544814)

I can't wait to set up my Tim Horton's trailer; coffee, donuts, and all the Bieber them troops'll ever need.

cheers,

Why? (-1)

Bill_Royle (639563) | more than 3 years ago | (#35544720)

Bush coalition-building / nation-building = bad
Obama coalition-building / nation-building = good

Wait, what?

The fact that the French took the lead on this says volumes about how big of a pussy Obama really is.

Re:Why? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35544800)

Are you seriously suggesting that Obama is a pussy because he doesn't blow in all Team America* style? Jumping the gun and leading the charge does not define a non-pussy - it defines a self-important vigilante moron.

[*] - America, FUCK YEAH!

Re:Why? (3, Insightful)

athmanb (100367) | more than 3 years ago | (#35544842)

You got your history turned upside down. The UN agreed with the Afghanistan war in 2001 mission as there was a proper reason for it. Only when Bush extended it to Iraq in 2003 for no reason at all against the will of every country other than the UK (prime minister only, the population was against the war too) and a few paid off votes did the global opinion turn around.

And opening a second front in Iraq and splitting the forces is one of the main reason why Afghanistan turned into the quagmire it is now, so there's no surprise in countries like Spain and Germany wanting to pull out from there after the US fucked that one up.

Re:Why? (4, Informative)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 3 years ago | (#35544946)

Be careful when you tell other people they're getting their history wrong. The UN authorized force to deal with Saddam when he invaded Kuwait. He never complied with the terms of the "cease fire" that saved his skin as he pulled back from that invasion, and he continued to shoot at the allied aircraft enforcing the UN-approved no-fly zone set up to prevent his ongoing slaughter of innocents in the north and south. He never stopped fighting following his invasion of Kuwait. All the rest is beside the point, and demanded the use of force to finally stop his regime. On top of that, of course, he never complied with the UN mandates that he allow proper inspections to find out what he did with the mountains of VX gas and other goodies that UN inspectors saw on the ground.

Combine that with Saddam's ongoing construction of the long-range missiles he promised to stop building/importing, his publicly announced cash payments to suicide bombers, his smuggling operations with places like North Korea, his violation of the terms of the financial aid packages intended to feed and care for his citizens (he used the money for weapons, cash for cronies, and more palace building) and you have the conditions that led to the UN authorizing force to remove him. Don't know how you forgot that part, but apparently you did.

What? (1)

dlenmn (145080) | more than 3 years ago | (#35544894)

Bush coalition-building / nation-building = bad
Obama coalition-building / nation-building = good

Wait, what?

So with those two lines you're trying to make Obama's coalition building and Bush's coalition building look similar...

The fact that the French took the lead on this says volumes about how big of a pussy Obama really is.

and then you're criticizing Obama for not building/leading the coalition? Are you claiming that he's building the coalition or not?

Re:Why? (4, Informative)

thetartanavenger (1052920) | more than 3 years ago | (#35544910)

The fact that the French took the lead on this says volumes about how big of a pussy Obama really is.

I really don't think the states needs to flash the size of its dick again quite so soon. If it's going to be done, it should be done right, and welllll, America doesn't exactly have the best reputation for taking charge and doing it right at the moment.

Just to note, I'm in the UK and to be honest I'd say the same for our country right now. Also, I recommend you actually read the quick analysis on the bbc website. The most important phrases in the analysis I feel are this:

Crucially it excludes any "foreign occupation force" in sweeping terms. This is a message to the Arab world - this is not another Iraq.

and this:

[] a final settlement to the crisis in Libya must be political and reached by the parties to the conflict themselves

This is not the same as what Bush did. Libya UN Resolution 1973: Text analysed [bbc.co.uk]

Re:Why? (4, Insightful)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 3 years ago | (#35544930)

Wow. Political, military, and historical ignorance plus a gratuitous anti-French slur all in four lines! (Not counting whitespace.) You must have worked really hard to pack that much small-mindedness into such a short post. Um, congratulations, I guess.

Alternative (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35544726)

Gadhafi is a dictator, no dispute there. So was Saddam. We brought "democracy" to Iraq and we are all witnesses of the consequence of that. Maybe democracy is not the best model for the Arab world. I'm reading today, in Egypt, where people fought for the freedom, radical islamists threw stones and shoes at Mohamed ElBaradei who is important pro-democracy figure there. What can we expect in Libya after Gadhafi? What do we know about the rebels there? A little known fact: the standard of living in Libya was one of the highest in all of Africa prior to these events. Does anyone think that after this it's gonna get better?

Historical happenstance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35544728)

8 years ago today ANOTHER war started in the Middle East...

Civilians = Armed Rebels? (0)

peterindistantland (1487953) | more than 3 years ago | (#35544780)

Protecting civilians means also protecting armed rebels? I'm surprised no one spotted this.

Could cost $1.2 Billion per month (1)

danbuter (2019760) | more than 3 years ago | (#35544796)

http://www.alan.com/2011/03/18/no-fly-zone-could-cost-up-to-1-2-billion-a-month/ [alan.com] This is going to get very expensive. Luckily, GE can build more missiles and sell them to the government. (Check into how much GE donated to the Dems and how often their CEO gets White House visits. Basically, follow the money).

Coalition of the bankrupt (2)

stoev (103408) | more than 3 years ago | (#35544822)

US: bankrupt
UK: bankrupt
France: close to bankrupt, just not so well known
Belgium: bankrupt country without a government goes to war ...

Growing economies don't participate in this stupid war.
Germany - No, Brasil - No, India - No, China - No...

Re:Coalition of the bankrupt (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 3 years ago | (#35544948)

US: bankrupt UK: bankrupt
France: close to bankrupt, just not so well known
Belgium: bankrupt country without a government goes to war ...

Libya - Nearly 2 million barrels of oil per day [wikipedia.org]

Now, does it make sense?

Whatever... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35544828)

For the longest time the people of Libya were considered "rebels", and now they are called "civilians"... I think that Obama spent more time on his "March Madness" chart than in consideration of those people!

Propaganda machine (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#35544846)

A while back Hillary was complaining that our propaganda machine paled when compared to "theirs". She's full of it. Al Jazeera could never convince us to go to war three times in ten years as well as CNN and FOX do and have. Nobody, but nobody can beat us in public relations. We rule the world. Neither China or Russia can stop us. No doubt they will expect us to share the plunder, and I'm sure we will to keep the peace.

UN? TRY FUCKING US !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35544848)

It's the US doing the dirty deeds done dirt cheap !! Those fuckers get a kick out of killing !!

French Military (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35544918)

French Military [youtube.com]

"I'd rather have a German division in front of me, than a French one behind."

Spot the pattern (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35544934)

Operation Iraqi Liberation
Operation Interference Libya ...

It has been long decided (60s? 70s?) that North Africa is to belong to the EU (in the long very run).

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>