Canadian Firm Gave Libyan Rebels Surveillance Drone

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."

Re:Of course

[Riceballsan]

ah it's not like we'd be dumb enough to put al-queda into power because we see them as the lesser evil... wait we did? oh right I keep forgetting apparently we are all idiots.

anti-war protestors?

[drnb]

And where are the anti-war protestors?

Waiting for a republican administration apparently.

Re:anti-war protestors?

[Gravatron]

Not all liberals are opposed to all wars, just the ones we find unjust. In this case, you had a bunch of rebels who asked for NATO's help, and got it, in a very controlled, un-escalated form. No boots on the ground, no skyrocketing costs, no casualties, etc. It's almost a police action. Only the most pacifistic of liberals have a problem with it. Now, the conservatives did, but that was because they hate any situation where Obama can get a foreign policy victory.

Re:anti-war protestors?

[LWATCDR]

"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:anti-war protestors?

[artor3]

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.