Canadian Firm Gave Libyan Rebels Surveillance Drone 165
Joining the posted submitter club, suasfan22 writes with a bit in Wired about the use of a drone by Libyan Rebels. From the article: "The Libyan revolutionaries are more of a band of enthusiastic amateurs than experienced soldiers. But it turns out the rebels have the kind of weaponry usually possessed by advanced militaries: their very own drone. Aeryon Labs, a Canadian defense firm, revealed on Tuesday that it had quietly provided the rebel forces with a teeny, tiny surveillance drone, called the Aeryon Scout. Small enough to fit into a backpack, the three-pound, four-rotor robot gave Libyan forces eyes in the sky independent of the Predators, Fire Scout surveillance copters and manned spy planes that NATO flew overhead. Don't worry, it's not armed."
Damn... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
hmm.. when did we do that? or are you talking about something Canada did?
Re: (Score:2)
Al Qaeda is bad, ergo all rebel forces are bad forever!
Great logic you got going there. Nevermind the fact that in any large movement of people whose only membership criteria is a pulse, you'll find a whole bunch of bad ones. The Republican party probably contains at least a thousand neo-Nazis. That doesn't mean that the GOP is a Nazi organization.
So why should it matter if there are some self-proclaimed Al Qaeda members among the Libyan rebels? Should we insist that they be ruled by oppressive dictator
Re: (Score:2)
Yes cruise missiles are very similar to tiny helicopters...
Re: (Score:1)
Okay can someone explain this to me? (Score:2)
How are ground attack missions part of a "No Fly Zone"? And where are the anti-war protestors?
Just wondering if it is okay to make all the strikes you want without the approval of congress as long as it is just with drones?
And was the Libyan government any more evil, corrupt, and dangerous than Iraq?
Re: (Score:2)
And was the Libyan government any more evil, corrupt, and dangerous than Iraq?
Lockerbie bombing.
So yeah the country that does actual terrorism is worse than the one that was only accused of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Invasion of Kuwait? Just incase anyone doesn't remember that was 23 years ago and the US bombed them for it.
I am actually all for getting rid of that government but the way it is being done frankly is in violation of US law IMHO.
The War Powers Resolution of 1973 says that.
"The War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, with
Re: (Score:2)
Invasion of Kuwait was a war not terrorism. Also it was about control of the oilfield.
Re: (Score:2)
I said dangerous. Not to mention that Iraq did have a nuclear weapons program before the first gulf war and also had massive amounts of chemical weapons. If you want to go on and claim that they where no longer a threat because of the first gulf war I would say that Libya was also no long a threat because the US air strikes and the 20+ years of no terrorist attacks on the US and Gaddafi's dismantling of his nuclear program, promising no more terrorist actions, and dismantling his chemical weapons.
As I said
Re:Okay can someone explain this to me? (Score:5, Interesting)
As I said I really have no problem taking him out with military action. He was a dangerous nut case. The problem I have is with not following the law. And I question the integrity of the "anti-war" movement as anything but partisan at this point.
Well I can only speak for myself, and I don't consider myself part of the "anti-war movement", but I was (and still am) a vocal critic of the Iraq War.
If the second Iraq War had been initiated in response to a popular uprising against Saddam and had consisted of advisers and air support instead of 150,000 U.S. troops occupying the country, then I would have been cautiously supportive. Then I would have believed that Iraq was a threat, not to the U.S. which was always ridiculous, but to its own people (and not just in the generic way that living under a dictator is dangerous).
Of course that ship had already sailed (and then sunk), which is why the Iraqi people weren't as happy to see us as one might have hoped.
So that, for me, is why the difference in reaction. It's not about partisanship... I also became cautiously pro-Afghan war when it became clear they were taking it seriously. Then Iraq came along and fucked that up besides being a clusterfuck of its own.
I'm not anti-war, I'm anti-stupid. :)
Re: (Score:2)
Disingenuous at best. The destruction of their reactor by the Israelis in 1982 was indeed "before the first gulf war," but long enough before that it doesn't really count. After that, they had amibitions, but no real progress.
Re: (Score:2)
Invasion of Kuwait was a war not terrorism. Also it was about control of the oilfield.
This is also about control of the oilfields.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with the War Powers Resolution is that the executive maintains that its unconstitutional and Congress does not have the balls to challenge this view in court.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry but when you unleash the military one should not play fast an [sic] free with the rules. Every i should be dotted and every t should be crossed.
:thumb_up:
If you can't get Congress to go along with whatever military action it is you want to involve yourself in, you probably have no business being there in the first place.
Don't even get me started on the irony of the current administration wanting to get the U.S. involved in a brand new foreign war when it has still been unable to extricate us from the previous TWO foreign wars that the prior administration got us involved in -- despite campaign promises to do exactly that.
Re: (Score:2)
Campaign promises were not to extract ourselves from both wars -- only one of them. Should have listened to the details closer.
Re: (Score:2)
Campaign promises were not to extract ourselves from both wars -- only one of them.
'Kay. I stand corrected. From which war did we manage to extricate ourselves?
Should have listened to the details closer.
Well, maybe. But since I pretty much figured he was lying no matter what he said, there really didn't seem to be much point.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're reading something into my statement which wasn't actually said.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If I wanted to make a point, I would have made a point, and it would have been explicit enough to be readily understandable.
Instead, I was doing nothing more than correcting a common misconception -- one even frequently seen among the President's supporters, who all too often took "change" to mean whatever they wanted to hear rather than listening to the details (which were spelled out for those paying attention).
Obama was very clear when on the campaign trail (and in statements prior to the campaign) that
Re: (Score:2)
And did that happen?
Re: (Score:2)
The Libyan government responded to peaceful mass protests with guns. Shooting unarmed protesters puts you in the evil camp. The NATA resolution was not just a no fly zone. The actual language was extremely broad:
Key points The resolution, adopted under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter: demands the immediate establishment of a ceasefire and a complete end to violence and all attacks against, and abuses of, civilians; imposes a no-fly zone over Libya; authorises all necessary means to protect civi
Re: (Score:3)
Citation necessary. Using the armed forces to attack is one thing, having a plain clothes operative sneak explosives onto a plane is a completely different matter altogether.
Re: (Score:2)
Citation necessary. Using the armed forces to attack is one thing, having a plain clothes operative sneak explosives onto a plane is a completely different matter altogether.
Why is that different when innocent people die?
Re: (Score:3)
How are ground attack missions part of a "No Fly Zone"?
They aren't. All the attacks are under the "protecting civilians" banner.
And where are the anti-war protestors?
Tired.
Just wondering if it is okay to make all the strikes you want without the approval of congress as long as it is just with drones?
AFAIK Congress hasn't undone the "blank check for war" they gave to the president after 9/11.
And was the Libyan government any more evil, corrupt, and dangerous than Iraq?
Meh.. it's hard to tell anything with the media filters... but they did seem more insane and more actively killing civilians.... (whereas with Iraq, they had already killed a lot of civilians and we did nothing)
Re: (Score:2)
You do not need to take out troops with handheld missiles for a no fly zone. Just keep your aircraft over 5000m and they are not a threat. Think about it, most man portable missiles have a range of only 5km or so and that isn't straight up! If you want make it 6000m just for giggles and you have no worries. Modern air to air missiles will have no problem taking out anything flying below you. You make those strikes only if you are going to do CAS or if you are going to use combat helicopters. Both of which
anti-war protestors? (Score:2, Insightful)
And where are the anti-war protestors?
Waiting for a republican administration apparently.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
So as long as it is cheap it is okay?
And the protests started before any of those things happened during the first Gulf war.
My main problem is with the not obeying the war powers act.
Re: (Score:2)
The more costly it is the greater the necessary justification. Supporting rebels trying to overthrow a brutal dictator is really something that we should be doing more of. Especially when it's as cheap as it is. Granted we're still talking about many, many millions of dollars and probably billions of dollars, but ultimately, unlike Iraq, this is a war in which the people will thank us for our help.
As opposed to Afghanistan which could have more effectively been done with cruise missiles given the lackluster
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"unlike Iraq, this is a war in which the people will thank us for our help."
Some do in Iraq, some will not in Libya that is if they live. Just what makes you so sure that one brutal government will not be replaced by new one? May I suggest that you read the book A Tale of Two Cities.
Re: (Score:2)
Then you support the Iraqi war. Remember the Kurds and others wanted Sadam out and he was a known-bad government.
Re:anti-war protestors? (Score:4, Insightful)
So as long as it is cheap it is okay?
Call me callous, but yes, to an extent. If we can help some rebels overthrow a dictator with minimal loss of life and a relatively low cost, with substantial support from our allies, then that's fine. I'd prefer we be more open about our intentions, but I understand the need for realpolitik.
If the war is going to cost a trillion dollars, kill thousands of our kids and hundreds of thousands of civilians, and be led by a joke of a "Coalition of the Willing" that consists of us, Great Britain, and five guys from East Bumblefuck, then we ought to be a bit more cautious. The fact that our allies aren't willing to get on board should be a warning sign, not a cause to deride them as cowards and rename potato products.
If Bush had handled Iraq the way Obama handled Libya, I would have been fine with it.
Re: (Score:2)
If you are making contention, YOU can supply support for YOUR position, TYVM.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Most people in the US don't like congress. What if a foreign power came in to "liberate" us from congress? You'd be pissed, right? Well what if you were presently i
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, I see that your point was probably meant in regard to the constitutional or maybe international legality of the involvement. My point is that protestors are not driven by fine legal points. They are driven b
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not a "pacifistic liberal". I have a problem with this because US is doing the exact same thing they did in Afghanistan 30 years ago - giving weapons to people who have similar short-term goals, while ignoring their long-term goals (see sig).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Obama has done a lot to fix the huge errors in judgement the bush ii admin made. As an outside observer I would have to say that bush ii was the biggest disaster the usa has ever had. He started an unnecessary war, lied about the reason for starting it, and did many other things, including various less than insightful statements, that made the usa a laughingstock in the eyes of much of the world. Freedom Fries. Right. Statesmen don't respond to valid criticism, and honest advice with schoolboy tantrums.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, minor action in Libya with no ground forces is exactly the same as making up lies, invading a country, and then torturing people.
Re: (Score:2)
And calling this a "No fly zone to protect civillans" isn't a lie? Bombing a country and killing it's citizens isn't an invasion? You are sending military forces into their territory. It isn't an occupation but it is still a violation of a nation by military forces. I will give you that no torture has happened yet by US forces.
Re: (Score:3)
There was a civil war going on. We were specifically requested by one side to stick our noses in. Yes we could have opted not to involve ourselves in it at all, but it's hardly a violation of a nation to take sides in a civil war when requested to do so by one of the sides. And ultimately the support we provided was pretty modest mainly serving as an evener to keep the rebels from being shot in droves from the air.
Next thing you'll be telling us that the French shouldn't have aided American revolutionaries
Re:anti-war protestors? (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes if you partake in a civil war on the side that is trying to overthrow a government you violating that nation. How could it be anything else. If the some group in the US asked for the overthrow of the the government and say China started firing cruise missiles at a base in the US would you not consider that an act of war?
I mean really?
Think about what you are saying?
Yes it is taking a military action? Or if the US started to attack UK military bases because the IRA asked them too?
As I asked do you feel that the US and NATO are "enforcing a no fly zone to protect civilians" and nothing more? Do you feel that attacking another nation is okay? Do you feel that not obeying the laws of the US involving military action is okay?
I have no problem with taking action in Libya. I have a big problem with not obeying US laws while doing it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
And are you saying that would not be an act of war? It is not is this the morally correct thing to do but is it an act of war or not.
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, I would hope so and so long as the forces recognized our right to self governance afterwards and put us back on the road to democracy the military personnel would be greeted as liberators.
That being said, it's unlikely to happen just because it would require a virtual WWW III to take down the US military and the dictator would have nukes.
Re: (Score:2)
The question isn't would it be right or wrong. The question is wouldn't that be an act of war. AKA in invasion. Not an occupation but an invasion of that nation. Suppose the party requesting the help in the Civil war was the Klan? Would that make it easier for your?
Re: (Score:2)
I've got no problem with it. The War Powers Act was unconstitutional and I have yet to see anybody try to sue the President or the Federal Government for violating it. The President doesn't have grounds for a lawsuit as he can't demonstrate grounds without violating it.
This isn't like those improperly declared wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, requiring the President to get approval for an operation of this type would significantly weaken the President's role as Commander and Chief which really requires a const
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
"UN could authorize other countries to intervene."
No it actually can not. The UN can only act on external threats aka a war between nations it can not authorize intervention in a purely civil war. Now if the Rebels where getting help from another nation then the UN can intervene on the dictators side or if the dictator attacked safe havens in other countries then those countries could as for help.
If you read that post that I was originally responding to he the poster said "Yes, minor action in Libya with no
Re: (Score:2)
don't ask us (Score:2)
ask a libyan
the point is aggression is wrong, right?
well, the aggression of the qadaffi regime against it's own people has been defeated. as someone who doesn't like aggressive warmongering, you're happy, right?
oh i see. you believe in things like the toothfairy, the easter bunny, and that people like qaddafi go away by themselves, like a popped soap bubble. and that all the criminality they do in the meantime, until they will magically pop like a soap some day, is acceptable to you? is that it?
choose:
1. op
Re: (Score:2)
"ask a libyan
the point is aggression is wrong, right?"
Guess what? It will depend on which one you ask? Do you really think that every Libyan is hates the current government and wants revolution?
Every statement you made could have and was said about Iraq as well.
I actually do think that intervention in Libya is a good thing but I am more concerned about the spin and they abuse of US law by the current administration.
1. The current administration REFUSES to follow US law in the form of the War Powers Act of 1
Re: (Score:2)
right: the qaddafi regime will stop butchering it's people and wait while you wrangle over your legalisms
maybe you can get the UN to write him an angry letter. that'll teach qaddafi
pffffffffffft
and i'm glad that you side with the tiny minority of libyans invested in the current regime at the pig feeding trough that defend his murderous regime
sir: you've lost your moral compass. you only have a legal compass. it is not sufficient for what you think it is sufficient for. namely, doing the right thing
Re: (Score:2)
Tiny minority? Have you taken a poll? Yes I feel that in a democratic country rule of law must always be upheld. The "Damn the law and do what is right" will most often end up terribly wrong. Why not go to congress and get their approval or at least try.
There is a reason why we have such laws. Every villain is the hero of their own story. I use my moral compass just fine to guide my own actions. The thing is that the president of the US is not a king and is bound by laws. He must always use a legal compass.
Re: (Score:2)
The Left was so used to condemning the Iraq war that they failed to see the important differences.
Top 10 Myths about the Libya war [juancole.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
None of those considerations matter in big boy politics.
Anti-war protestors don't oppose war on principle because opposing war on principle is pretty stupid even for hippies.
Qaddafi pissed of enough people on both sides of the political spectrum that taking him out made sense. Oil is WELL worth war and bloodshed to obtain. There is enough to make the Libyan people prosperous, perhaps help reverse emigration from Libya (good for the EU), and a prosperous Libya can be a useful regional example.
As for Congress
Confusion in write-up? What's up Slashdot? (Score:2)
...Aeryon Labs, a Canadian defense firm, revealed on Tuesday that it had quietly provided the rebel forces with a teeny, tiny surveillance drone, called the Aeryon Scout.
This means the rebel forces got some hardware, right?
Small enough to fit into a backpack, the three-pound, four-rotor robot gave Libyan forces eyes in the sky independent of the Predators...(emphasis mine)
With this, my understanding then shifts to the fact that the Libyan government forces got "eyes in the sky" with this "hardware donation".
And here's why: The Libyan forces up until a few hours ago, referred to Libyan Government forces led by Mr. Gaddafi. Right?
I am confused. Or am I getting old?
Re: (Score:2)
I think at this point we're recognizing the rebels as the legitimate governing power of the Libyan people. And yes, these things do get confusing, civil wars tend to get that way.
Re: (Score:1)
Both the government forces and the rebel forces are Libyan forces; the robot was given to the rebel Libyan forces. The article already stated that, so didn't bother to qualify the second time around, due to context.
Either that, or the company decided to play fair, and gave one each to the government and rebels....
Testing Ground? (Score:1)
While I have no problem with supporting democracy, I'm worried if these conflict zones are becoming testing grounds for arms manufacturers. Maybe it's just me, the blunt sales pitch on the video is a little shameless.
Eeh ?! Eeeeh !?!?!? EEEEEHHH !?!?!?! (Score:1)
good or bad? (Score:1)
It's good for the rebels, bad for the regime. Are we supposed to be cheerleaders? Is this story about technology or about the Libyan civil war?
Great tool by the way.
Does anybody think it's a good idea to meddle with internal conflicts of other nations?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Just be smart.
Re: (Score:2)
well, this is just a cheap toy, but what's so smart about meddling with other people's affairs? Who made you world's police?
America, fuck yeah?
Re: (Score:2)
The people of the country have to decide what to do, they have decided. But it's an internal affair of that country, a civil war. What I normally see is that all this help by others is normally done so that something can be had back from the country, with which they are meddling, be it becoming IMF debtor or some special contracts and/or then later affecting the new government in a way, to promote interests of those 'helping' hands, but which are not in the best interests of the people of that country.
They
not armed? (Score:2)
It probably had an iPad to show the Lybians something scary that they havent't seen before, like a never ending Terrance and Phillip show...
"Don't worry, it's not armed." (Score:1)
Yet.
Sincerely,
Wacko Serial Bomber.
It was probably thought too rude to say no... (Score:2)
Re:It was probably thought too rude to say no... (Score:5, Interesting)
We are polite. Americans however confuse 'polite' with 'weak'. I don't understand why. As Churchill said, "If you must kill a man, it costs you nothing to be polite about it.".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Surely it says something that even at a price of nothing, churchill wasn't willing to bear the cost....
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps just the Northerners you are used to dealing with.
I had a friend who grew up in Philidelphia. When he moved to the South he started raving about how nice everyone was. I had to hurredly explain the difference between friendly and polite to him (yes, people will be polite to you when they actually hate your guts). He was clueless.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not entirely true, I am sure there is at least one rude Canadian up here. Oh sorry, I didn't mean to offend you by disagreeing with you... :P
That all depends (Score:2)
If you count Toronto as part of Canada or not...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I was trying to make a joke, for crying out loud.
LOL4COL
Didn't I see that... (Score:3)
Very enterprising. (Score:2)
Reminds me of "Market Forces" [amazon.com] (by Richard Morgan, author of Altered Carbon among others).
Kind of like venture capital firms, but competing for would-be regimes in sovereign states instead of startup businesses.
Rather plausible.
A coup in Cambodia. Guns to Guatemala. For the men and women of Shorn Associates, opportunity is calling. In the superheated global village of the near future, big money is made by finding the right little war and supporting one side against the other–in exchange for a share of the spoils.
Oh, and the "death match" road warrior duels to make Partner in a firm didn't hurt the story any. :-)
Thats too big... (Score:1)
Low Cost International Marketing (Score:2)
ITAR restricted? (Score:2)
Windows (Score:2)
run by a touchscreen tablet powered by Windows XP
Pretty brave of these Libyan rebels to rely on Windows in a battlefield.
Re: (Score:1)
Not Armed...Yet. Given time and duct tape though?
And sufficient lift, which is probably not available.
Why does it even matter? (Score:2)
It is a piece of equipment that has been designed to help in a military operation. Why does it matter whether it is in itself armed or whether it "just" helps armed troops in attacking the other side more efficiently? When we get tangled up to such semantic differences, we see ridiculous claims about the newest military technology saving lives or stuff like that.
Re: (Score:2)
So dropping one guided munition isn't saving lives compared to carpet bombing a vast area to assure one hit?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You're saving the lives of your own soldiers. I guess we shouldn't bother to fight any wars at all. We should have just let Hitler take over the Europe. We should have let Osama Bin Laden get away. We should have let Saddam Hussein take away Kuwait. Israel should let the Palestinians rocket them into submission.
Re: (Score:2)
If carpet bombing kills 100 people, and a targeted strike kills 10 then the targeted strike saves 90 lives.
Starting wars is bad. If you can reduce collateral damage that is less bad. Not starting the war in the first place saves more lives, but the Libyan rebels did not start the war, the Libyan government did.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, that's some messed up logic.
So, if I was planning on chopping my hand off, and instead decided to chop off just my pinky finger, does that mean I saved four fingers??
Re: (Score:2)
no you are wasting less lives but are still wasting them....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Like many things the movement of technology getting cheaper and easier to use will impact how things like wars unfold in the future. Pretty soon the US's dominance in drones and automated warfare will be countered by adversaries with similar means. I think it's only because the current two wars were against essentially backwards nations that the US has escaped relatively unscathed, but what happens when they start flying their own armed drones?
That's how military technology works: Somebody invented a spear, so somebody else invented a shield. Then another person made a bow. Fast forward a few thousand years and we have robot planes that blow people to kingdom come before they even see them coming.
It's inevitable that the rest of the world will get their own version of the drones eventually, so Uncle Sam's just going to have to keep building better weapons like he always does. The entire history of mankind is little more than a massive arms rac
Re: (Score:2)
The entire history of mankind is little more than a massive arms race.
Well, there's something the human race can be proud of.
Re: (Score:2)
Hand it over to a bunch of dudes that strap APC turrets to the back of pickup trucks.
I would think that if such guys can use the drone then the design is pretty good.
Re: (Score:2)
Not great for traverse, but the elevation probably worked so a "Truck/StuG" cross is a lot better than nothing.