It does seem the perfect fit for the recently retired & 25 years old "Arc Royal" ... to have smaller navies of the world contribute something, instead of nothing, or "symbolic gestures".

I wonder if the the great MIA can feel the pincers closing yet. If ever there was a perfect time this is it. Supporting a 'people's uprising' against a hated and discredited international pariah in a way sanctioned by the UN using antique equipment the liberals don't want replaced. Yes Mr Ziffy there is a need for fighter aircraft. Yes Mr Ziffy there is a need for new fighter aircraft. Yes Mr Ziffy there is a need for then new F 35s. Yes Mr Ziffy you can return to Harvard anytime you want.

Canada should not be involved in any way,
neither should the US.
Let the great UN take care of this.

Dr. Maximum Angst, surely you jest. The UN has no military assets.

Thanks to the French attack on a Libyan military vehicle, the dice have now been rolled and there can be no more room for the UN to try to wiggle out of this. I suspect also that the French have taken measure of Barry and realized that the only toughness in the White Hosue is rhetorical. Their air attack backs Barry into a corner; now he has to act or cede leadership to others, something that would not sit well with Americans.

I'm with the Doc...let's stay well away from it.

To stay out of it isn't high on my list. The problem for me is what the mission is? France has gone further already than I thought they would. I doubt the UN sanctioned attacking a truck unless it was firing on civilians.

Update, according to Fox,the French have now taken out four Libyan tanks. One Mig has been shot down, but it is unclear if it was a government or rebel aircraft and who shot it down.

In a broader sense, is Iran behind all of this unrest and have some of the UN members decided that it is time to attempt to take control or some measure of input into the ME unrest?

Also, what a bad time for the US to have a president whose only interest appears to be establishing a Marxist utopia while radical Islam is flexing its muscle around the world and in Europe with ultimate aim of establishing a worldwide Muslim caliphate.

It will all be over by the first of April and everyone will be a winner.

There are no good guys to support. Khadaffi is a turd, and the "democrats" who oppose him are muslim brotherhood and al qaeda.

There is no reason for Canada to be there, but part of me says it would be sweetly ironic if a rocket from a Canadian warplane sent Paul Martin's good buddy to the arms of his 72 virgins.

Troops will be home by Christmas. Prince of Bill Ayres is in control.

Khadafy is a wanton killer and a constant terrorist threat ( see Pan Am 103 bombing, among others .

Topple the regime, and accept no new government unless it is friendly to the West and non-Islamist.

Benghazi, the second largest city is in rebel hands, so you could say the job of toppling the regime is already half-completed.

Much of Khadafy's force are mercenaries, who undoubtedly will keep a sharp eye on the exit, and probably already are looking for a safe way out of the country.

At the meeting in Paris the Prime ministers of France, Britain and Canada attended. Where was Pres. Obama? (he went to Brazil, even though his state dept urged him to attend the meeting in Paris).He sent Hilary.

Now its being rumored that Hillary Clinton wants out, looks like Jimmy Carter redux!

Firstly good luck, good hunting and come home safe to the Canadian airmen.

This is a clear humanitarian intervention and completely authorized so I can see why it wouldn't be so popular here. I imagine that GW Bush not being in charge has something to so with its lack of popularity here although I guess he supports it.

Still what about good old vengeance and pay back? Qadaffi was an active supporter of terrorism for a long time,( Flt 103 & IRA) in a way Saddam never dared and now this is a chance to even some scores.

We miss Carter!

Civil Disobedience is a wonderful thing when anti-government forces are in your corner and you think you might be winning.

But when the pro-government forces start kicking your ass,
Civil Disobedience becomes a bitch and you start begging the world for help.

?Question-

Does the UN plan to get involved in future civil wars?

Or only if the civil wars have oil, gold, or diamonds that UN countries might want or need.

How about we drop the first one on the UN. It wasn't all that long ago they couldn't kiss Khadafi's ass fast enough. No good deed goes unpunished....

Canada doesn't need the oil.

America could use the Gold or Silver.

"Does the UN plan to get involved in future civil wars?
Or only if the civil wars have oil, gold, or diamonds that UN countries might want or need."

Some oil companies had contracts with Qadaffi and he seemed to be honouring them so I don't think that was a motivator.

When did the UN kiss his ass? They had pretty strong sanctions in place until the US and Europe made a deal to have them dropped. Blame those administrations.

The Nobel Peace Prize winner declares ... war?

What's next - Al Gore buys private jet, big yacht and big houses?

Thats fine going for a no fly zone in Libya...the government of Yeman is also killing it's people...the Syrian government also...the Saudies in Bahrain killing people also.....Iran same...the only difference aircraft is use in Libya....I guess people die worse in Libya..because of the aircraft....they need more no kill zones..or let them kill each other as they always do..

It can't be just the numbers of people murdered, maybe it's something to do with the oil? or is it just the squeaky wheel syndrome?

http://www.cubaverdad.org/genocide.htm

well, good news then, Cuba has found some off shore oil, send in the troops, and someone tell the remaining Trudeau family to stop calling Fidel "uncle".

I see this as Alien vs Predator ... monsters on both sides.

It will end with Muslims in charge of Libya ... perhaps different Muslims, but still Muslims and probably worse ones seeing how they may wind up with an Imam in charge.

They have been doing what they do best up to now ... killing each other ... we should not interfere with that. I don't see how helping one side or the other will help any of us in the West.

All things considered, Hillary would have been a much better president than Obama and that ain't sayin' much.

There is NO reason for Canada or the US to get involved in this. NO EXIT PLAN not even any gols.

Although I should not that the statement that the rebels are at all Islamist is a crock.

"This is a clear humanitarian intervention and completely authorized so I can see why it wouldn't be so popular here."

Ha ha ha, so what's not humanitarian about Bahrain? Or Yemen? And Authorized by 1/3 of the Security Council abstaining from the vote? That's your moral authority?

They are just kicking the latest despot under the bus when his internal power structure falls apart, same as Mubarak, same as Saddam Hussein, same as the Shah of Iran, etc..., the list is long and not very distinguished.

They are still sleeping around with the rest of that ilk, such as the current leaders of China, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, etc.. They have the same voice on the world stage as Qaddafi did only a few short weeks ago.

The ethics and morals that underpin a real "humanitarian" effort would not have our leaders breaking bread with those who would treat their own citizens as expendable, and certainly would not require their approval.

Just because you can't fix every problem doesn't mean you can't fix any.

Bahrain is complex and will expose the US to accusations of hypocrisy. No argument there.

As for the rest the moral authority seems to have come from the Arab League and the rebels in Benghazi. The legal authority is from the UNSC. Why do you think Russia and China abstained and thus permitted the intervention?

How much blood has the West shed in liberating and saving Muslims? The Balkans, Somalia, Rowanda, and in return they hurl hatred at us and the left scream war monger at the West. Why is it western blood that must be shed to save Muslims, why can't Muslim nations save their brothers? Nothing wrong with Saudi Arabia's army they have no issue invading another nation to ensure that Royality remains in power. Frankly I'm sick of our military members being sent to Muslim nations to liberate them OR NOT and then the Jihadi's will head to Iraq and Afghanistan so they can shoot the Infidel in the back. Libyans scream the West must save us, and guess what most of the foreign insurgents in Iraq are from Libya. I'm convinced the uprising is the result of the Muslim Brotherhood and their buddies radical Islam.

Once again the world (US) screws up. The first dozen tomahawk missiles should have rumbled through Quadaffy Duck's tent flaps. Having said that, the sooner the US hands over operational control to someone else the better.The world's bad guys already know Barry O is all talk no action so someone else stepping up to the plate meaning business will get their attention.

btw, who plans a trip to Brazil after Carnival?

wunderbar!....one step closer to the dies irae with problematic islam...

nobody said it would be pretty or painless for that matter...

but we have the money and the time and the need and the inclination and the hardware....

man o' man what kind of a sea change is happening in Yroop for the frogs and the rest to actually DO something!!!!

this must be seen as an opportunity to move forward somehow...this ain't simply no human charity driven effort...

anyway...lots of poor fools bad guys will be dusted and we'll struggle onward to the light...

libertariansaresmarter at 6:35 PM

I agree.
What happens if one of our planes is shot down and K-Daffy has our pilots as hostages?
We'll have to send in ground troops to rescue them, which is more than we do now when pirates take our nationals hostage.
Are we going to change our policy of dealing with pirates too.
(I hope so)
It used to be a rule of international tradition to not get directly involved in civil wars.
What happens if K-Daffy is overthrown and the new government is worse than the old government?

@Rose

Rwanda is not Muslim and we didn't do very much to try and "save" them.

My understanding is that the USA is pretty popular "on the street" in Bosnia, the Kurd part of Iraq and Kuwait. All places liberated by the West.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/03/2011319175243968135.html

al Jazeera has a brief vid on the gathering of eagles!

Note Hillary Clinton speaks of the U.S. allies being --- CANADA --- along with 'European' ... not the Brits?

I have noticed that never, ever, does Britain mention Canada's efforts on the Int'l. scene. Must be that "empire" thing ...
`

Canada should not be involved in any way,
neither should the US.
Let the great UN take care of this.
Posted by: Dr Maximum Angst at March 19, 2011 2:23 PM

BINGO. (but this a a fairly new outlook for me; perhaps I should lay off the libertarian revisionist history).

UN. And/or, Arab League, OIC.
Let Libyans and their Arab brothers sort this out. The West should totally BUTT OUT.
Dear West: Stay the fkuc out of Muslim Lands. Do you ever, ever learn?
Who are these "rebels" anyway? To what extent is this non-spontaneous uprising, Islamist?

Putative genius Victor Davis Hanson has opined that, given how much they hate Ghadaffy the Arab world might really appreciate the intervention. No really he made that moronic statement.

Gaddafi promised to put his panzers in Benghazi and show 'no mercy'...

Didn't we see this movie 70 odd years ago?

Presumably, he is singing the Afrika Korps lied...

Heiß über Afrikas Boden die Sonne glüht,
Unsere Panzermotoren singen ihr Lied,
Es rasselten die Ketten
Es dröhnt der Motor,
Panzer rollen in Afrika vor.

Now the UN has chimed in so are the Marines perhaps humming their tune as well?

The First Barbary War (1801–1805), also known as the Barbary Coast War or the Tripolitan War, was the first of two wars fought between the United States and the North African Muslim states known collectively as the Barbary States. These were the independent Sultanate of Morocco and Tripoli, which were quasi-independent entities nominally belonging to the Ottoman Empire.

From the Halls of Montezuma
To the Shores of Tripoli;
We fight our country's battles
In the air, on land and sea

Thus everything old is 'new' again...

Cheers

Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht, Commander in Chief

1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group "True North"

Thus everything old is 'new' again...
~Hans Rupprecht

Not quite.
The U.S. Marines invaded Libya(or whatever it was called back then) because they were taking Western merchant ships(including the U.S.) and crews hostage.
This time we'll be offering up our aircrews as potential hostages to K-Daffy's anti-air net in Libya's civil war.

Why?
Because France made the mistake of throwing in with the "rebels"(whomever they are) when the rebels were winning and now that the rebels are losing France is fooked.
We're basically bailing out France's shortsighted foreign policy and getting ourselves hooped in the process.
The Saudis, Yemenis, etc. don't want to see a precendent of old regimes getting overthrown and we shouldn't get involved with Libya's civil war.

Just more "refugee's" to take in.

That's why the left likes obscure countries like Canada to get involved. More money for rebuilding "infrastructure" and another welfare shore to park a few more Third World butts on afterwards.

Bombing Libya? This whole deal is some sort of a bad joke. Afghanistan isn't close to a done deal and we're walking away from that. But now we're going to help bomb the crap out of a country that shoots a couple of reporters and protesters? While the Taliban is still murdering innocent men, women & children? Give me a break, this whole deal stinks to high heaven.

At least the left can be happey that their "Nobel Peace Prize Winner" hasn't called it "Shock & Awe", he calls it "Shuck & Jive".

At least the left can be happy that their "Nobel Peace Prize Winner" hasn't called it "Shock & Awe", he calls it "Shuck & Jive".

PET Cemetery's Photo-Ops.

H/T Liberal Iggy.

http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2009/07/09/PH2009070902424.jpg

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40646000/jpg/_40646393_martin203.jpg

I agree with an earlier poster. This whole deal stinks. Iran killed its protesters, why didn't they go after the imadinnerjacket guy? My gut tells me this is more u.n. bullsh*t, that could turn out very badly.

God Bless Israel.

Don't know what is off side or on side in this conflict, but I do know this.
These "uprisings" seem to coalesce right after the vote in Sudan that decided that country should split, christian south, and muslum north. The north-muslum Sudan borders on Libya's eastern border. So you have to ask, where did the rebels get their weapons from?

If this is a UN thing, the logical country to be supplying the troops is Egypt. Their air force is bigger than that of any European country and they are right next door. This whole thing looks very badly thought out to me. We are going to help one group of thugs take over from another for no good reason.

Khadaffi needs to go before he dies in peace. All terrorist leaders need to get the message that sooner or later their deeds will come back to them.

So many bombs, so little time.

There are no white hats in this fight. Stay out of it and be prepared to deal with the black hat that triumphs.

Could this whole matter really be about oil and economics with 'human rights' as a smokescreen?

While I thoroughly disagreed with the left's mantra regarding the Iraq war, "the Americans are only after the oil for themselves", there may be some merit here, in terms of a war about oil, if not indirectly.

What is unique about the Libya situation, is that the price of oil has significantly risen in a short period of time thanks to the unrest. Despite the fact that the Saudis have said they will cover Libya's production, the price remains elevated from previous levels.

In 2007, the high price of oil precipitated the economic depression of 2008, if oil didn't cause it, it was certainly the catalyst for it. And with those memories fresh in mind, is it not beyond reason, that countries are truly scared regarding a repeat economic scenario? Time to nip this problem in the bud, wait for an opportunity to pounce on Libya, and go for it.

I'm not against war, far from it, but I don't get this scenario right now, Khadaffy Duck is a despot, but no different than Mugabe, or others, who have never been invaded by the UN.....

Just sayin.........

What if we saw to it that both sides were equally armed and let them flail away at each other???

Reading between the lines of the reports:

France let slip it's eager military with the bonus of advertising it's weapon systems.

The US has advanced cautiously due to pressure from the WH but is following protocol by interdicting AAA and CCC initially with cruise missiles. 40 cruise missile attacks would pretty much eliminate Libya's high tech defences.

Gadfly's mercenaries are not the usual 1st world veterans but rather are hired killers from Chad and Mali. These are only effective when they have the advantage and tend to be treacherous, dangerous and useless against serious opposition. They lack the fanatic courage of the Taliban.

Like many here, I wonder why the obvious was neglected....Egypt's vast military.

Speedy
[......The problem for me is what the mission is? France has gone further already than I thought they would. I doubt the UN sanctioned attacking a truck unless it was firing on civilians.......]

Why the surprise France regularly interveens in Africa militarilly without any sanction. No "Desert Storms"...just a company of Legionaires but decisive.
You interpreted "military vehicle" as truck...LOL...read TANK.

That jet likely got shot down because some "rebel" got lucky with one of those 23mm AA cannon you see on the news.

I have to agree with all of DanBC's post @ 10:39.

A slide back into recession would be disastrous, as it would be worse than the one we are all currently recovering from.

A bonus is possibly getting rid of that slim ball Daffy Duck.

Who said this? "The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."

If you said B. Hussein Obama you're a winner. Has anyone seen him go to Congress to get authorization or did I miss that?

The ironies here are just too sweet. The icing on the cake would be if they caught K-Daddy Duck and threw his sorry ass into Gitmo.

Could this whole matter really be about oil and economics with 'human rights' as a smokescreen?
Posted by: DanBC at March 20, 2011 10:39 AM

Well, DanBC, I presume that's a painfully obvious rhetorical question!?
I'm having some fun with an old friend who was avidly (and correctly as it turns out) against the Iraq venture. It's hugely amusing, Me Now playing Him Then on this, using a primarily Socratic approach: asking lots of questions many of which echo much earlier discussions. You must be sincere though; humble; earnestly confused.

I encourage my conservative/libertarian friends to hone up on the Socratic method, express no opinions (shut the fkuc up!) but to asks tons of questions of their liberal family and friends about this shiny new "humanitarian" enterprise in aid of the "people of Libya".

Said friend said of 9/11: "what goes around comes around", i.e., from intervenionist US "foreign policy?".

Because France made the mistake of throwing in with the "rebels"(whomever they are) when the rebels were winning and now that the rebels are losing France is fooked. We're basically bailing out France's shortsighted foreign policy and getting ourselves hooped in the process.

I remember serving couple years in another war the enlightened French started and couldn't finish.

I believe it was a place called Vietnam.

So now Bambi is being led by the nose into another conflict started by the UN and French?

"Oh Joy of Joys!" "Oh Dream of Dreams!"

"Johnie grab your gun, grab your guns,
Because we ain't coming back till its over,
over there.

Sheeeeesh...

“*Barack Obama – Narcissist or Merely Narcissistic?”

“*This is his sole legacy: a massive post-traumatic stress disorder.”

…-

“Liberal Democrats in uproar over Libya action (Kucinich calls for Obama’s impeachment)”

A hard-core group of liberal House Democrats is questioning the constitutionality of U.S. missile strikes against Libya, with one lawmaker raising the prospect of impeachment during a Democratic Caucus conference call on Saturday.

Reps. Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.), Donna Edwards (Md.), Mike Capuano (Mass.), Dennis Kucinich (Ohio), Maxine Waters (Calif.), Rob Andrews (N.J.), Sheila Jackson Lee (Texas), Barbara Lee (Calif.) and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.) “all strongly raised objections to the constitutionality of the president’s actions” during that call, said two Democratic lawmakers who took part.

Kucinich, who wanted to bring impeachment articles against both former President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney over Iraq — only to be blocked by his own leadership — asked why the U.S. missile strikes aren’t impeachable offenses.

Kucinich also questioned why Democratic leaders didn’t object when President Barack Obama told them of his plan for American participation in enforcing the Libyan no-fly zone during a White House Situation Room meeting on Friday, sources told POLITICO.

And liberals fumed that Congress hadn’t been formally consulted before the attack and expressed concern that it would lead to a third U.S. war in the Muslim world.

(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com …”

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2691755/posts

*O’narcissist:

*"The "small people", the "rank and file", the "loyal soldiers" of the narcissist - his flock, his nation, his employees - they pay the price. The disillusionment and disenchantment are agonizing. The process of reconstruction, of rising from the ashes, of overcoming the trauma of having been deceived, exploited and manipulated - is drawn-out. It is difficult to trust again, to have faith, to love, to be led, to collaborate. Feelings of shame and guilt engulf the erstwhile followers of the narcissist. This is his sole legacy: a massive post-traumatic stress disorder.”

http://www.globalpolitician.com/25109-barack-obama-elections

MND

Of course, for the MSM, 'human rights' is the only issue at hand, and the message must be endlessly repeated, because after all, the UN is involved.

The UN would NEVER have any hidden agenda, right? (Unca Mo, can you answer this one?)

Sorry to be posting late comments - I read somewhere that France, Spain and Italy are worried sick that if Khadaffi wins in Libya, that many,many,many rebels will try to come as refugees to their countries. France has only a 5-6% population of Muslims yet is experiencing problems way out of proportion to the Muslim population. They are rightly concerned about more Muslims entering as refugees and all the welfare entitlements that would mean.

As to China abstaining - it is my understanding that China has HUGE investments in Solar Power Farms located in the Saharan regions of Libya, Morocco and other countries of the Sahara. Could it be that they wish to protect their investment??

maz2
I doubt the Republicans will support Kucinich et al on this....the immediate result would be Biden as Potus.....

Canada allowed itself to be pulled into another shooting war. How cute!

Apparently the PMO calls that 'humanitarian aid'.

Well, if you look at it from another angle, there are plenty enough folks who joined CF in a hope of volunteering in a foreign shooting war one day, so let them have it. Just not on my dime.

I find it -fascinating- how many here have decided that sending six (6) measly aircraft to defend -innocent people- from being bombed and strafed by their own government is a bad idea.

W. T. F. is this?

We don't defend the innocent here anymore? We don't fight evil where we find it? We only fight evil when its convenient, or when the innocent are the right creed and colour?

You people call yourselves Canadians?

MooMoo Quadaffy is an evil tyrant. I applaud the Europeans for -finally- getting their thumbs out and shooting down some airplanes that are indiscriminately bombing whole towns in support of that evil tyrant. Its the least they could do, seeing as how THEY are the sons of beeatches who kept this lunatic in power all these years.

I applaud Stephen Harper for sending the poor, tiny contribution of Canadian whup-@ss that he could scrounge up, pretty much our -entire- functioning air assets in Europe right now. That sack of sh1t Chretien refused to fight Saddam Hussein, I give thanks that Harper at least will stand up and honor our country's treaties with our allies.

And I add, its the least he could do given the amount of money Lafarge and other Canadian outfits have been making off oil contracts given by the insane dictator MooMoo.

We fight evil because it is evil, boys. Not to get the fawning gratitude of those we save. IT was right for Bush to go solo against Iraq. It is right to go into Libya now. It would have been a lot more right to have gone three weeks ago when MooMoo started the bombing and the strafing, but better late than never.

Never thought I'd say this, but "Way to go Hillary Clinton!" She stepped up with a pair of big brass ones where her husband weaseled out on Rwanda.

hey Phantom, rule number 1 in war finished the 1st job you start. That would be AFGHANISTAN not Libya.

Phantom

Won't find much argument here, but, being a cynic "we fight evil where it exists", that didn't apply in Rhodesia(to this day), Sudan/Darfur, Russia/Chechnya.....and western forces didn't invade despite the cruelty and evil.

No, when the UN gets involved, there are underlying reasons, and they aren't necessarily altruistic. And I don't feel badly about our CF-18s making a token appearance there, we've done more than our fair share in Afstan, thanks to the euro-weinees.

Kdaffy is a nutcase, but, if being nuts and a despot are the qualifications to be invaded, Iran is far past long overdue (and should have been done 5 years ago or so). Saddam got what he deserved, he was a destabilizing force in the ME....so is Imadinnerjacket. Where's the invasion? (and yeah, he could torch much of Israel if allied forces did go after him, he's worse than Kdaffy).

The Euros are self-serving and aren't consistent with their reasoning for military action, I don't trust them, and don't see this action for the reasons stated....remember, the UN is involved, cannot take that org at face value.....ever!

So bear, remind me again why Canadian forces are in Afghanistan? Supporting our allies, fulfilling NATO treaty obligations and trying to make up for Chretien stiffing Bush on Iraq I think, something like that?

Oh, and shooting guys who kill little kids in inventive ways for political purposes. That too.

Maybe, just thinking out loud here, but -maybe- if we had an actual military, that we actually supported, like with actual money and not just yellow-ribbon bumper magnets, so they could buy proper AIRCRAFT and proper helicopters, tanks, boots, bullets and all that, MAYBE they could do more than one thing at a time. Know what I mean?

Besides, you think sending six F-18s that were cooling their heels in Germany will hinder even our teeny little military in their Afghan campaign? Doubt it.

Dan, I'm not saying we could or even should go everywhere and fix everything. But SNC Lavalin and Lafarge have been doing big frickin' business in Libya since MooMoo took over. I'd say that gives us some moral grounds to support the Libyan people whose pockets and hides that money came out of all these years.

I'm as cynical as the next guy when it comes to the reasons governments do things. That disgusting sleaze and slime is what makes governments suck and why they need to be made small and afraid of the voters.

I don't give a crap for government reasons though. For once they are doing the right thing, whatever the reason. We can't save every sparrow that falls, but we can by gawd save -this one-, and we should.

We don't defend the innocent here anymore? We don't fight evil where we find it? We only fight evil when its convenient, or when the innocent are the right creed and colour?

Our military is for defending Canada and it's strategic interests.
There were innocent Libyans dieing under the K-Daffy regime last year at this time and we didn't use our military to attack Libyan forces.
There are innocents dieing under evil regimes all over the world everyday.

Besides, you think sending six F-18s that were cooling their heels in Germany will hinder even our teeny little military in their Afghan campaign?

What happens if one of our planes is shot down and the pilot is taken hostage?
Then ground troops have to invade and do SAR, that's what.
Then involvement grows.

Same could happen with any intervention.
Military action should only be undertaken for defence or strategic advantage.
I don't see either at stake here.

What I see is our military being used in a civil war for the purpose of social change and to bail out France's foreign policy mistake which France thought would further France's strategic advantage by recognizing the rebels as the legitimate government before the rebels had won their side of Libya's civil war.

Oz

Our military personnel accept the fact that capture, and yes, death, are possible outcomes of being in the military in battles and disputes.

They didn't join to flip burgers or make pancakes.

So stop thinking what you think is good for our personnel, they accept their role, and the outcomes.

So stop thinking what you think is good for our personnel, they accept their role, and the outcomes.
~DanBC

When did I opine about the safety of our military personnel?
The point I made was about getting drawn into a ground war precipitated by our interference with air power in another nation's civil war, the reason for that interference being France's premature recognition of the rebels as the new government of Libya when the rebels had not consolidated power.
France didn't care that it was doing business last year with K-Daffy any more than the UK or anyone else who is now so gungho about getting involved in Libya's civil war in the midst of a world wide recession with America already having 2 war fronts going on.

The criticism was about using our military without Canada's defence or strategic reasons to do so.

Getting directly involved in other nation's civil wars is wrong.
This is socialism on the edge of a sword, people.
Doing a Marshal Plan in Afghanistan while not defeating the enemy first is another grand experiment in "nation building" too, ie. socialism.

Can anyone here say exactly who these rebels are and what their political/religious position is?
Can it be claimed with surety that these rebels are better than K-Daffy?
Who cares?
It's about France's access to Libya's oil and this is not in Canada's interest to be involved.

This is, however, in Eygpt's strategic interest and you don't see Eygpt, which shares a border with Libya and has 220 F-16s plus nearby airfields, acting here.

So much for the coalition of the willing.

"The head of the Arab League, which supported Libyan no-fly zone, said his organization had not endorsed attacks on ordinary Libyans.

"What is happening in Libya differs from the aim of imposing a no-fly zone, and what we want is the protection of civilians and not the bombardment of more civilians," Amr Moussa said, announcing an emergency Arab League meeting to discuss Libya.

Moussa's comments followed a demand by Russia to stop the "indiscriminate" use of force it said was killing civilians in Libya.

The air strikes exceed the mandate of the UN Security Council resolution, which approved a no-fly zone and authorized all necessary measures to protect civilians, Russia Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich said in a statement."

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4045091,00.html

Solid support there, China will be next to condemn the "excessive force".

Heck, lets go all the way, want to bet the UN calls an inquiry?

"Hope & Change"

"Yes we can"

"Change you can believe in"!

Ha ha ha ha ha.........................

The Phantom>

"We don't defend the innocent here anymore? We don't fight evil where we find it?"

As someone else pointed out, that defence of the innocent seems to be selective, based on energy reserves.

I wonder if western people's would still be cheering if, let's say, the Chinese had decided to send in warships, missiles and troops against Libya's evil regime attacking it's rebel uprising in the name of "humanitarianism".

It's funny to me that the UN and indeed all western governments are talking about arming the defenceless Libyan peoples, all the while they are aggressively attempting to disarm every other people's on the globe. Especially us.

There is far more to this than meets the eye, and as someone else said on this thread "it stinks".

We should sit this one out big time. In the end I believe it's our sovereignty that is at stake. We are being used as pawns in this EU, UN, Anglo-American game of "us" and the "little people". The Arab nations sit on oil, while we sit on agriculture, lumber, technology and a whole host of resources that is the apple of the "Liberal elitist, Globalist, Progressive "eye (pick your self-serving agenda). They who are empowered by this farcical and corrupt UN bureaucracy, which we should have not part of.

Knight99, Qaddafi is bombing his own cities. You're good with that?

I'm not. One phone call from Barry yesterday took out probably most of Qaddafi's airfields and AA assets, zero American lives at risk. The French took out several tanks which were not out sight seeing in the desert. Our CF-18 guys will be keeping Qaddafi on the ground and bottled up where his forces can't kill half the population whenever they want. If one of our pilots gets captured NATO forces can go get him, that's what they did in Iraq, that's what they do in Afghanistan.

If George Soros makes money off this, it doesn't matter. If the Muslim Brotherhood make money or get some more power in the aftermath, it doesn't matter.

If several million people don't get killed by a mad dictator, that kinda matters.

Anybody here remember "Never again!"? "Never again" is one of the main reasons Canada even has a military. We don't need one to to fight anybody, the Americans do that for us, as Trudeau demonstrated so well.

Bottom line my friends, do we want to be a country of freeloading peckerheads like Trudeau had in mind, or do we want to be a country that can fight for freedom when we need to?

And about the UN, who gives a rat's @ss what those morons do? Obama was using them as an excuse to do what he wanted to do, which was -nothing-. He'd still be happily doing -nothing- if Hillary Clinton hadn't gone around him and arranged this NATO/UN show behind his back. Man, to be a fly on the wall the next time Barry meets up with Hill in person.

Saudis and the Arab League? Those guys have been -screaming- for somebody to come deal with this situation, no matter what they say on TV. I'd be happy to let them burn in this fire except for the several million people who are going to die.

We're talking about a population the size of Ontario getting dead by like next Tuesday here. I don't think we can really let that happen.

The Phantom >

"....Qaddafi is bombing his own cities. You're good with that?"

I understand your sentiments. But I am looking at it from a different angle. For one "bombing his own cities" seems a little extreme by what we can see via MSM. What I perceive is a so called rag tag rebellion that seems to be very well armed (for a gun prohibited country) who were attacking the government because they are fed up. What we could also see in Tripoli was allot of support for Gaddafi, most probably by tribal clan members leading the rally. As a footnote, I lived in Tripoli for five years, it was no different as an Arab country than any of its neighbours. Essentially the same standard of living, similar average annual income, similar high unemployment, and exactly the same bitching about the guy in charge.

That said, who likes Gaddafi or any other dictator for that matter. My point was, he is no different than 90% of the world's leaders and governments, which 85% either have no oil, or are too big a bully for the UN to stick it's nose in. Think China and Saudi Arabia.

We need to be troubled by the UN acting as the worlds police and "Liberal" lawmakers. They use us and in particular the US as the muscle to enforce their will on others. This time China and Russia members of the UN counsel vetoed the attack on Libya and were ignored (some counsel, eh). So what do we do next time when it's Russia or China who decides to attack someone and ignores our veto.

What do we do when the UN decides enough is enough for us owning guns, having too much income compared to the rest of the world, property rights etcetera? Does the US, China, Russia gang up under some sort of pretence that we don't meet a UN mandate?

I believe we need to stay sovereign and maintain our sovereignty with pitbull force. We need to be neutral in world affairs like Switzerland and use our vast wealth and resources to enforce that sovereignty.

"If several million people don't get killed by a mad dictator, that kinda matters".

It would matter if Gaddafi has ever killed any of his 5-6 million people en masse. This has never happened once before in his +40 years of rule. Not sure about lately it's been a bit of a media blackout.

Knight99, Qaddafi is bombing his own cities. You're good with that?
I'm not. One phone call from Barry yesterday took out probably most of Qaddafi's airfields and AA assets, zero American lives at risk.

This is interference in a civil war under not just UN auspices, it is UN DIRECTED.
(after the French, an on-again off-again NATO partner and permanent member of the UN Security Council blew their essential relationship with the K-Daffy regime)

You know, the same UN whose IPCC has been pushing Global Warming and just a year and a bit ago was pushing the H1N1 Global Pandemic.
The same UN that was behind the Oil for Food Scandal with Saddam and ran President Bush around in circles for 8 months to a year before the Second Gulf War and the invasion of Iraq?

Copenhagen COP15 world domination sign on, Cancun COP16 division of the worlds resources(except for Japan who showed up and basically made a declaration that they wouldn't sign anything that came out of COP16)

Now the UN has NATO forces on tap to direct at Libya?
Scary shit, people.
Three months ago Libya wasn't on anyone's radar and now a coalition that assembled inside of a month is directed by the UN to interfer with a Libyan unprising/civil war?
(Russia and China abstained in the U.N. Security Council vote, WHY?, can anyone ever remember a precedent of Russia and China abstaining when the issue was war?)

One phone call from Barry yesterday took out probably most of Qaddafi's airfields and AA assets, zero American lives at risk.

K-Daffy has huge stockpiles of MANPADS.
FYI

I'm not sure I've ever seen an opposition leader nearly salivating at the mouth and groveling so pathetically for the PM position as Iggy does.

That loathsome characteristic alone turns my stomach switching between channels. Worse is the intuitive feeling that with all his hat in hand, love me like a lost puppy theatrics, lurks a truly sick mind desperate to get his hands on the cookie jar and rape it like no other liberal has before him.

A vote for this pathetic creature should not even enter the consciousness of a sane Canadian.

Oop's wrong thread for Iggy comment above. mixed tabs up, sorry.

The Phantom is saying the right things for the reasons, still I am surprised more people on this board don't see the opportunity to take down a terrorist supporting SOB. Justice for Flight 103.

The Un did not direct the attacks it permitted them. There is a difference.

gray >

Yea, well as I stated before, I understand the sentiments. Unfortunately there is something all wrong about this. Gaddafi was not Saddam Hussein. There is absolutely no track record of him killing people en masse like Saddam gassing the Kurds. Every charge ever thrown at him has been pure speculation by the controlled media, including the so called recent atrocities against his own people. Where is the evidence and proof? He has always been an eccentric thug, but has never been proved guilty of anything beyond thugishness. The Egyptian authorities were well beyond Gaddafi for torture and human rights abuses, yet a western favourite "at the time". Check out Saudi Arabia, and god help the starving and interned North Koreans because no one else will.

One minute we have an uprising in Libya with well armed mobs of "freedom fighters", then we have reports of mass atrocities, then we have the UN dictate a no fly zone, then we have American Tomahawk missiles flying in around the country (really doing some damage).

What happened to the UN role as "peacekeepers"? Are they not at the very least supposed to send in the blue hat troops to assess and at the minimum try to mediate first?

Nope it's strait off with NATO and warheads, lead in another unconstitutional move by an American "president" without approval from congress.

Who's running things? Who's next?

The last time I checked we Canadian gun owners piss the UN off as well. Are we all domestic terrorists in the eye's of the UN masters now too, or does that come a little later?

To suggest that 6 CF-18's are inconsequential I guess depends on whether you are sending or receiving their wrath!

Simple solution to the whole scenario is to give Libya to Egypt to pacify. They have no oil and
2 million bpd would help a lot. It would help divert the nusance going on in Cairo.