“Okay, Newt, go ahead.
Oh, you want someone else to actually go fly the planes?
Well, then, tell us Newt: how many American kids are you willing to killed to establish this no-fly zone.
How many Libyan anti-aircraft battery staff are you prepared to kill? - conscript soldiers who are just doing their job and not attacking anyone, whether loyalist or rebel.
Another mis-guided attempt to pit science against religion. The two disciplines are NOT antagonistic unless someone tries to answer the questions of one with the tools of the other. As science discovers things that falsify prior scientific thought, no one says: well, that disproves science then. Instead we say: well that idea was not correct because the scientists of the time did not have all the information. As science discovers things that contradict a passage in a scripture, why do we not say: well, that part of scripture was not correct, because the authors did not have all the information.
It is only the idiots who insist that all scripture in a given religion is god-authored (as opposed to god inspired) that are threatened by scientific discovery. More enlightened scientists and theologians say: well, it is not surprising that folks didn't get everything right a thousand years ago - we don't know anyone who gets everything right today, either.
Think of science examining reality as analogous to artificial intelligence: every new advance shows us "well, that's not what we mean by intelligence." Similarly every new discovery about the natural universe simply says: "well, that belief wasn't necessary to religion"
You've heard of "Disgusted, Tunbridge Wells"? Well, I live in Holland Park and I've Had It. Up to here! An old curmudgeon, I rant and rave about things I read, see or hear in the News. Frequently sarcastic, irreverent and libertarian; often wrong - but never uncertain.