RNoAF has issued news about fridays mission over Libya.
Two Norwegian F-16 released one GPS-guided bomb and two laser-Guided missile on Gadaffi Armoured target.
They released a video, but it looked to me as an abandomed T-72 in the middle of desert..

Target practice it seems.. Why bother, those armoured units could be used by the rebels.
They probably run out of fuel and was left useless..

Can you provide a link to that video?

As for the selection of targets, I have no basis to question coalition/NATO assessments and capabilities. Perhaps it’s not that easy for the aircrews in each and every situation. Better to be sure and do one’s best to accomplish the mission.

The worst the UN can do unfortunately is write Gaddafi a nasty letter and hope for the off chance he doesn’t chuck it in the trash. They have no power, considering they great those genocidal dictators pretty much as equals.

In cases like this I have the impression that the UN depends heavily on the willingness and abilities of its member states. The UN itself cannot muster and apply military power without sufficient support and contributions from its members. Afterall, it is largely the member states and their resources which make up the body which is known as the UN. Am I right?

In addition to this dependency, I understand that it can sometimes be quite difficult for key members of the UN (i.e. UN Security Council members) to fully agree on resolutions allowing for the use of military force in an attempt to resolve a crisis.

As I said they shouldn’t have a problem finding flying jobs elsewhere but it must be heartbreaking!

Very heartbreaking. I think similar situations have occurred in other countries in the past.

The job outlook might depend on a number of factors. I sincerely hope things will eventually work out for those affected.

From my view, it is a) good for average people to read how politics are done beyond the journalistic speculation, b) the risk of leaking may serve to mitigate some completely ruthless political decisions, since the only thing that politicians are afraid of, is political cost. A politician who is afraid that his not so moral directives may one day leak to the public, will think it twice before doing it, c) it is something that enhances transparency and judgment of the politicians by the people. For example if pubblically a politician claims one position and in leaked documents appears doing the opposite, this is something good for the voters to know.

I can agree on much of this. Given a sufficiently responsible behaviour (self-cencorship etc.), WikiLeaks may have a positive role to play in my eyes. This however isn’t the issue I was trying to raise.

Yes, apparently they pubblish pretty much everything, important or not, but i don’t really care.

(…)

The US does declassify documents after many years (about 30 i think more or less), but only some and in those there are censored parts, which usually are also the most interesting. It would be great to have them uncensored.

This is one issue about WikiLeaks which concerns me a bit. Apparently they seem willing to hand out material which might be connected to security issues for individuals and/or countries. Can they be trusted to take proper precautions before releasing potentially sensitive information (and I mean “sensitive” in terms of e.g. security, not embarrassment)?

Wikileaks has the advantage of releasing contemporary documents. I am sure the US gov will take measures to increase safety for at least the confidential files, but in meantime, i enjoy wikileaks for as long as it lasts.

Regarding some of the material related to Afghanistan, I’m not really sure if unfinished and potentially flawed reports/raw data necessarily will be of good value for the average citizen. I’m think that the use (and risks) of releasing such information can be discussed.

Yes, WikiLeaks’ actions might lead to attempts to increase information security here and there, potentially leading to less transparency in the future. Diplomatic correspondence might suffer due to a lack of trust. In the end, is this really good for the public?

How would you feel if someone released information which could compromise your safety?

Otherwise, whistleblowers from all countries will start doing the same.

(…)

God bless the whistleblowers.

I think blowing the whistle in cases of illegal activities and attempts of cover-up etc. is one thing which is more easily justifiable. Many people seem to support the idea. Hasn’t the U.S. government tried to provide a service for this purpose?

In my opinion, handing out classified information pertaining to e.g. national security (such as lists of critical sites) is different. I fail to see what this has to do with freedom of speech.

As others have pointed out before me, a great deal of the information recently provided by WikiLeaks seems more or less trivial, old news etc. Much of it seems to be of more interest to parts of the media rather than the respective governments. Again, what do they hope to achieve with information which has nothing to do with whistleblowing?

Please tell me what good comes from printing a list of installations important to Amerixcan security.

I agree on your point. Whistleblowing is one thing, but I wonder about WikiLeaks’ motives concerning that particular document.

As usual, many Europeans don’t see the harm as long as it’s aimed only at America and not them. Rather like their stance on radical Islam and terrorism in general.

It seems to me that these issues have gained more attention among a great deal of Europeans over time, especially after some of the events connected to the cartoon debate in 2005.

?????:confused:

Me too..

Are you required to ware helmet in gliders?
I am one in US, and never was told to ware one.

I’ve never heard about any requirement to wear a helmet when flying gliders.

A headset may be preferable when flying a motor glider, especially due to the noise if nothing else. A built-in loudspeaker and microphone generally seem to do the trick in unpowered gliders.