I think Bone was really just looking for any excuse, however small, to continue sharing his views on military tactics. When he's got more smart stuff to say, he'll often just grab whatever's lying around, quote it, and just start talking. I find it endearing.
Salvation122 wrote:3278 wrote:How bad was this before we went in? The Daily Show has been on break [and I haven't gotten home to watch last night's], so I haven't really gotten any news on this at all.
At one point the Libyans were turning anti-aircraft flak cannons on civilian protesters. Later they started running close air support missions against them.
That was sort of my impression from what little I'd heard. Ana asked me yesterday what was going on in Libya - and she cares less about international current events than I do, which is saying something, so I definitely wanted to be able to give her some kind of useful explanation - and this was basically the image that I presented. I hadn't heard about the AA cannons, but "no fly zone" in this situations
always means, "We don't want the military to be able to drop bombs on civilians."
And I'm...I don't know, basically all for this. I have my reservations about defying sovereignty, but whatever: who said that was some kind of absolute that can't ever be defied? My views on this are much less cut-and-dried than they used to be. But okay, I'll stipulate that having the UN take military action to prevent the wholesale slaughter of unarmed civilians is "a good thing." But here's where the problems start, for me.
For one thing, it would really be pleasant if our government [and the UN] would develop
some kind of consistency in these things. The US response - and I place blame for this squarely on the Obama administration - to the recent uprisings in that corner of the world has been extraordinarily varied, and can be roughly overgeneralized like this:
Tunisia: "Wait, is something going on? Oh, did...did something just already happen? Um, good job, guys?"
Egypt: (Before it looked like success was possible for the revolutionaries.) "Oh, hey, guys, you be careful over there. Don't get yourself in any kind of trouble, eh? You...you know we can't help you out, right?"
(Once success looked possible.) "Oh, hey guys. Good work, there. Getting some independence. That's nice for you.... Sorry about the tear gas cannisters, eh?"[/i]*
Libya: "Hey, UN. We're going to take care of these people, right? Yeah, sure, we've got some spare guys, no problem. Maybe a couple of you could help out? If it's not too much trouble?"
Bahrain: "Whoa, hey everybody. Calm down. You know, it's not worth fighting over."
Certainly each of these cases is different, and difference in response should be expected, but the US government [and, again, the UN] responses seem to have been chosen by having a seizing epileptic throw darts at notecards with options like, "Storm the shit out of those fuckers!" and "Shame the protesters until they weep and flee."
My second objection is more to the current function of the UN as it relates to the American military getting constantly fucked by circumstances outside their control. Look, I understand East Timor doesn't have a single aircraft carrier in the Mediterranean to spare, but surely someone, somewhere has to have said, "Not to be a dick, but our military's kind of busy taking care of some other problems near here, and our guys are starting to get a little tired. Could we get some help from someone other than the British, the French, and the Dutch? Russia? China?
Certainly, when you have the largest military and the most advanced military technology, it's only natural that you'll be used in that capacity in your international club of nations; there's just no
sense in having Vietnam send warplanes to help out. But we need to all do a better job of splitting both responsibility and privileges in the United Nations: there shouldn't be five nations with more power than anyone else, and there shouldn't be a handful of nations doing disproportionately more than others.
We need a new UN charter, and a new way for the UN to do what it does. We need a UN with massive power closely restrained, with equitable costs and benefits, which is empowered to take action against member nations, for which the benefits of membership are great enough to encourage all to join, whose ultimate goal is the sustainable safety and security of the planet and its inhabitants, without any more judgment or interference than is absolutely necessary.
*And I
absolutely understand that we had reasons to be so non-committal, with Mubarak a sort of ally-ish person, and the Israel issue, and our recent track record of wandering around that part of the world "nation building." I get it. But the way the Obama administration handled this was
still wrong. That said, it's a lighter shade of wrong than the shit the last guy did. Pretty refreshing.
[edit]Okay, looks like The Daily Show just did ten minutes on
almost exactly all of this on Monday. I could have just posted a link to people funnier than me.[/edit]