Turmoil in Libya (2011) and post-Gaddafi blowback
- Thread starter willellis
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 5,997
- Points
- 1,160
You've been given a pile of good and justifiable reasons that we, they, us are not intervening at this time. Get yourself and your white stallion down off of that lofty, ivory tower and have a good solid look at the world.
And to paraphrase a member here "In that world, the sky is blue"
And to paraphrase a member here "In that world, the sky is blue"
- Reaction score
- 2,827
- Points
- 940
I explained it to him by PM....to no avail. Perhaps fixing a post is more difficult than sorting out the UN, US, China, Russia, Libya, and now, Saudi Arabia.CDN Aviator said:
A
aesop081
Guest
sean m said:
Your solution to that is more intervention ??
It may very well be positive but i question wether that is worth the investment in Canadian lives and treasure that would be required. it is easy for you to say "intervene" because you are not at risk of being one of those who will have to do it.
make no mistake, you have no knowledge whatsoever.
I had much to learn at 21. I also had experienced things you cant begin to imagine. I have experienced alot of the real world since and my perspective is based on that.
- Reaction score
- 146
- Points
- 710
Time for a pro-vivisectionist league?
sean m: Your response to this?
The Indispensable Military?
http://www.cdfai.org/the3dsblog/?p=139
Mark
Ottawa
sean m: Your response to this?
The Indispensable Military?
http://www.cdfai.org/the3dsblog/?p=139
Mark
Ottawa
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 560
Sean, consider the following:
The Canadian Forces are pretty much at max capacity now with just one battlegroup deployed in Afghanistan. Where is the manpower and logistical support for a Lybian adventure going to come from? Since the Canadian public isn't exactly brimming with enthusiasm over our efforts to build schools, establish civil infrastructure and civic institutions and protect the rights of women and children in Afghanistan (to the extent the NDP have called us war criminals in the past and the Legacy media ignored the completion of a two lane highway, 4000 micro loans and a project to make the hospital in Kandahar city more hygienic in my tour alone), where is the public support for intervention?
Come to think of it, in the 1930's, people were willing to go fight for what the thought was right (see the International Brigades. Canadian Communists raised one for the Spanish Civil War). Where are the people lining up to "do the right thing" in the absence of State action?
The answers add up to a big "no". We have no resources, nor the public support (which IS what political will actually is) to do so. There may be even worse consequences down the road if we don't intervene (see up thread), but for now the Canadian and world public seem willing to accept the risk. The real world sucks. Deal with it.
The Canadian Forces are pretty much at max capacity now with just one battlegroup deployed in Afghanistan. Where is the manpower and logistical support for a Lybian adventure going to come from? Since the Canadian public isn't exactly brimming with enthusiasm over our efforts to build schools, establish civil infrastructure and civic institutions and protect the rights of women and children in Afghanistan (to the extent the NDP have called us war criminals in the past and the Legacy media ignored the completion of a two lane highway, 4000 micro loans and a project to make the hospital in Kandahar city more hygienic in my tour alone), where is the public support for intervention?
Come to think of it, in the 1930's, people were willing to go fight for what the thought was right (see the International Brigades. Canadian Communists raised one for the Spanish Civil War). Where are the people lining up to "do the right thing" in the absence of State action?
The answers add up to a big "no". We have no resources, nor the public support (which IS what political will actually is) to do so. There may be even worse consequences down the road if we don't intervene (see up thread), but for now the Canadian and world public seem willing to accept the risk. The real world sucks. Deal with it.
- Reaction score
- 146
- Points
- 710
Is sean m concerned to the death over Cote d'Ivoire?
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2011-03/14/c_13778314.htm
Why not? No TV? Not a nice world out there, keep those national interests (however calculated) in mind.
sean m: What about those thousands killed by India in Kashmir? There are, one supposes, foreign (and defence) policy, er, trade-offs for Canada--as well as those stemming from emotion and lack of knowledge. Tough world in reality:
http://unambig.com/kashmir-and-the-great-game-and-double-standards/
Mark
Ottawa
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2011-03/14/c_13778314.htm
Why not? No TV? Not a nice world out there, keep those national interests (however calculated) in mind.
sean m: What about those thousands killed by India in Kashmir? There are, one supposes, foreign (and defence) policy, er, trade-offs for Canada--as well as those stemming from emotion and lack of knowledge. Tough world in reality:
http://unambig.com/kashmir-and-the-great-game-and-double-standards/
Mark
Ottawa
Lorne Gunter, in the Full Comment section of the online National Post, is critical of President Obama's action, or rather inaction, towards Libya. It is reproduced under the Fair Comment Provisions of the Copyright Act.
Lorne Gunter: After Libya, Western credibility is shot
Lorne Gunter Mar 16, 2011 – 12:14 PM ET | Last Updated: Mar 16, 2011 12:35 PM ET
All hail the glorious ruler
It’s said that Teddy Roosevelt used to enjoy quoting a West African saying, “Speak softly, but carry a big stick.” To the extent that the current U.S. president, Barack Obama, has a foreign policy doctrine, it would have to be the exact opposite, “Shoot your mouth off, but carry no stick whatsoever.”
Just look at the disaster the U.S. and the Western allies have created in Libya.
In early March, Mr. Obama insisted that the murderous Libyan strong man, Col. Muammar Gaddafi, “step down from power and leave” Libya immediately. Everyone, including Gaddafi, thought that meant that if he didn’t depart, the U.S. was prepared to use some level of force to make him go. Shortly after the president utter his threat, it was reported that Col. Gaddafi was trying to negotiate his exit with the rebel forces that, at that time, seemed certain to depose him.
But then there was no no-fly zone imposed by the U.S. or NATO. And there were no arms shipments to the rebels. A few automatic weapons and some grenades might have tipped the balance in the war.
The U.S. and its allies have aircraft carriers and air force bases within easy striking distance of Libya. With little effort (and little risk to their flyers), they could have pinned Col. Gaddafi’s jets on the ground and silenced his anti-aircraft batteries. They likely, too, could have restricted his use of helicopter gunships.
Imposing a no-fly zone had European and Arab League approval. It’s true the two major multilateral organizations the U.S. wanted to sign-off on no-fly before it put it a zone in place — the UN Security Council and NATO’s governing council — are both still dithering over whether to approve such a move. But independently, the French, the Brits and the Arab League have nodded their support.
No one would have truly complained. There may have been some public posturing against U.S. Imperialism and the usual rot by leaders in the Arab world and elsewhere, but privately, almost no one likes Gaddafi — not even his fellow Arab leaders. So there would have been little real opposition to a U.S. move.
But President Obama is the new Jimmy Carter — a sanctimonious do-gooder, who makes all kinds of high-toned moral pronouncements, but then never follows through. He did the same when Iranian protesters threatened to overthrow the mad mullahs of Tehran in the spring of 2009. He wished them well, then abandon them to the thugs and guns of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whose blatant theft of a democratic election had sparked the protests in the first place.
Mr. Obama might be forgiven for missing his opportunity in Iran. After all, he was new in office then. But he is two years into his job now, and Libya was a much cleaner opportunity. It’s easier for U.S. forces to get to than Iran and far less capable of throwing up resistance to U.S. military efforts.
Even the ouster of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak shows Mr. Obama’s fecklessness, in a way. Had Mr. Mubarak not chosen to go on his own, he might still be in power. He didn’t have the army on his side — as Col. Gaddafi appears to — but then the Egyptian protesters didn’t take up arms, either, as their Libyan counterparts have.
My point is, nothing Mr. Obama did seems to have decided events in Egypt. The Egyptians took care of their own problem. Had it been left up to the American president, Mr. Mubarak might well have chosen a Gaddafi-like crackdown and succeeded in keeping power.
It is said that the U.S. has faltered because as bad as Mr. Gaddafi is, the Obama administration feared the rebels might well have been worse; they might have turned out to be extreme Islamists who are pro-al Qaeda.
That’s certainly possible. But it’s hard to see how they could have been much worse than the Colonel, who at one time was a more enthusiastic sponsor of anti-Western terrorism than even Iran.
Whatever their intent, the rebels might have been grateful to the West, too, for helping free them from a corrupt and brutal dictator. At the very least, having seen Western might used against their foe, they may have been reluctant to test that might again by permitting their country to become a staging ground for terror attacks against Western targets.
The problem now is that no one in Libya feels any gratitude towards the West. And no one around the world fears the Americans.
Both the rebels and Col. Gaddafi will be angry with the West, especially the United States. And no one in any other country will take American threats or pressure seriously. American pronouncements about democracy and freedom and free and fair elections will be assumed to be just so much hot air.
The world may moan about American unilateralism. The French may sniff, and the Brits and Germans and others may wring their hands about American disdain for the UN and other international collectivist organizations. Still, everyone looks to follow the American lead. If the U.S. takes a firm stance and backs its up, others fall into step. They may not always like it, but they do it. And there is a certain stability in international affairs that comes from U.S. clarity and decisiveness.
Now, thanks to Barack Carter, we’re back to the point where the worst, most vehemently anti-Western elements feel emboldened. Meanwhile, moderate and pro-Western elements are afraid to stick their heads up because they are justly concerned the Americans won’t back them up. Iran has been lost for a generation thanks to Jimmy Carter’s unwillingness to stand up for moderate, democratic forces in the face of Ayatollah Khomeini’s Islamic revolution. Now in Libya and elsewhere there is a real chance of a repeat under the vacillating Mr. Obama
Lorne Gunter: After Libya, Western credibility is shot
Lorne Gunter Mar 16, 2011 – 12:14 PM ET | Last Updated: Mar 16, 2011 12:35 PM ET
All hail the glorious ruler
It’s said that Teddy Roosevelt used to enjoy quoting a West African saying, “Speak softly, but carry a big stick.” To the extent that the current U.S. president, Barack Obama, has a foreign policy doctrine, it would have to be the exact opposite, “Shoot your mouth off, but carry no stick whatsoever.”
Just look at the disaster the U.S. and the Western allies have created in Libya.
In early March, Mr. Obama insisted that the murderous Libyan strong man, Col. Muammar Gaddafi, “step down from power and leave” Libya immediately. Everyone, including Gaddafi, thought that meant that if he didn’t depart, the U.S. was prepared to use some level of force to make him go. Shortly after the president utter his threat, it was reported that Col. Gaddafi was trying to negotiate his exit with the rebel forces that, at that time, seemed certain to depose him.
But then there was no no-fly zone imposed by the U.S. or NATO. And there were no arms shipments to the rebels. A few automatic weapons and some grenades might have tipped the balance in the war.
The U.S. and its allies have aircraft carriers and air force bases within easy striking distance of Libya. With little effort (and little risk to their flyers), they could have pinned Col. Gaddafi’s jets on the ground and silenced his anti-aircraft batteries. They likely, too, could have restricted his use of helicopter gunships.
Imposing a no-fly zone had European and Arab League approval. It’s true the two major multilateral organizations the U.S. wanted to sign-off on no-fly before it put it a zone in place — the UN Security Council and NATO’s governing council — are both still dithering over whether to approve such a move. But independently, the French, the Brits and the Arab League have nodded their support.
No one would have truly complained. There may have been some public posturing against U.S. Imperialism and the usual rot by leaders in the Arab world and elsewhere, but privately, almost no one likes Gaddafi — not even his fellow Arab leaders. So there would have been little real opposition to a U.S. move.
But President Obama is the new Jimmy Carter — a sanctimonious do-gooder, who makes all kinds of high-toned moral pronouncements, but then never follows through. He did the same when Iranian protesters threatened to overthrow the mad mullahs of Tehran in the spring of 2009. He wished them well, then abandon them to the thugs and guns of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whose blatant theft of a democratic election had sparked the protests in the first place.
Mr. Obama might be forgiven for missing his opportunity in Iran. After all, he was new in office then. But he is two years into his job now, and Libya was a much cleaner opportunity. It’s easier for U.S. forces to get to than Iran and far less capable of throwing up resistance to U.S. military efforts.
Even the ouster of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak shows Mr. Obama’s fecklessness, in a way. Had Mr. Mubarak not chosen to go on his own, he might still be in power. He didn’t have the army on his side — as Col. Gaddafi appears to — but then the Egyptian protesters didn’t take up arms, either, as their Libyan counterparts have.
My point is, nothing Mr. Obama did seems to have decided events in Egypt. The Egyptians took care of their own problem. Had it been left up to the American president, Mr. Mubarak might well have chosen a Gaddafi-like crackdown and succeeded in keeping power.
It is said that the U.S. has faltered because as bad as Mr. Gaddafi is, the Obama administration feared the rebels might well have been worse; they might have turned out to be extreme Islamists who are pro-al Qaeda.
That’s certainly possible. But it’s hard to see how they could have been much worse than the Colonel, who at one time was a more enthusiastic sponsor of anti-Western terrorism than even Iran.
Whatever their intent, the rebels might have been grateful to the West, too, for helping free them from a corrupt and brutal dictator. At the very least, having seen Western might used against their foe, they may have been reluctant to test that might again by permitting their country to become a staging ground for terror attacks against Western targets.
The problem now is that no one in Libya feels any gratitude towards the West. And no one around the world fears the Americans.
Both the rebels and Col. Gaddafi will be angry with the West, especially the United States. And no one in any other country will take American threats or pressure seriously. American pronouncements about democracy and freedom and free and fair elections will be assumed to be just so much hot air.
The world may moan about American unilateralism. The French may sniff, and the Brits and Germans and others may wring their hands about American disdain for the UN and other international collectivist organizations. Still, everyone looks to follow the American lead. If the U.S. takes a firm stance and backs its up, others fall into step. They may not always like it, but they do it. And there is a certain stability in international affairs that comes from U.S. clarity and decisiveness.
Now, thanks to Barack Carter, we’re back to the point where the worst, most vehemently anti-Western elements feel emboldened. Meanwhile, moderate and pro-Western elements are afraid to stick their heads up because they are justly concerned the Americans won’t back them up. Iran has been lost for a generation thanks to Jimmy Carter’s unwillingness to stand up for moderate, democratic forces in the face of Ayatollah Khomeini’s Islamic revolution. Now in Libya and elsewhere there is a real chance of a repeat under the vacillating Mr. Obama
- Reaction score
- 146
- Points
- 710
HMCS CHARLOTTETOWN is now officially fighting terrorism:
Operation SIRIUS
http://www.cefcom-comfec.forces.gc.ca/pa-ap/ops/sirius/index-eng.asp
Funny, I haven't seen the Colonel's gov't or military added to this list:
http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/prg/ns/le/cle-eng.aspx
Mark
Ottawa
Operation SIRIUS
http://www.cefcom-comfec.forces.gc.ca/pa-ap/ops/sirius/index-eng.asp
Funny, I haven't seen the Colonel's gov't or military added to this list:
http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/prg/ns/le/cle-eng.aspx
Mark
Ottawa
A
aesop081
Guest
MarkOttawa said:
:rofl: OP NO SMILING lives ..........
- Reaction score
- 146
- Points
- 710
Arms export "Oops!"--I'm assuming the horrid source is actually right:
Canadian-made armoured vehicles enter Bahrain
http://www.ceasefire.ca/?p=7585
Mark
Ottawa
Canadian-made armoured vehicles enter Bahrain
http://www.ceasefire.ca/?p=7585
Mark
Ottawa
- Reaction score
- 9,783
- Points
- 1,360
Nobody is going to intervene in Libya, if the French, Italians, and Brits were really serious about a No-Fly Zone they would have done it themselves, its basically in their backyard. Fact is, the US along with every other Western country is trying their hardest to extract themselves from a long standing war, not start a new one. With the precarious economic situation the United States and many other nations (Great Britain) find themselves in, more foreign wars and interventions is something Western governments are going to look to avoid.
- Reaction score
- 4,175
- Points
- 1,260
It appears the move got ALL PARTY support in 1991 - kinda hard for the opposition to complain now, eh?MarkOttawa said:
- Reaction score
- 2,827
- Points
- 940
milnews.ca said:
milnews....are you discussing a potential "Opposition Party" complaint.....or "opposition" by some blogger who hates all Conservative party defence acquisitions...such that he'd base his scandal-mongering headline on a ceasefire.ca article? :
Shame he doesn't realise that Bahrain...unlike Libya....matters.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 360
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
sean m said:
I think that out of all your posts, this one bothers me the most and I'll tell you why.
If you are, as you state, more learned in terms of what is going on in the world than your peers at the age of 21, then they might consider you to be a leader. This means that they may look at your opinion as "gospel truth", and think that it's the only true accurate reflection of the situation.
If that is the case, then you should really ensure that you don't speak out about things which you don't understand fully* and when you post on websites like this unless it first involves reading everything and developing a deeper understanding not only of the topic at hand but the history and relevant situations which can be used to defend your viewpoint.
If this isn't done, then as one other poster said, we really are screwed.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/u-pushing-air-strikes-no-fly-zone-libya-20110317-100831-148.html
A change of tune: US now pushing for a no fly zone, and airstrikes on Ghadaffi's forces.. This ought to be interesting,
op:
A change of tune: US now pushing for a no fly zone, and airstrikes on Ghadaffi's forces.. This ought to be interesting,
op:
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
The UN Security Council approves a no-fly zone:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2011/03/17/libya-red-cross031711.html
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2011/03/17/libya-red-cross031711.html
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 430
New York Times
March 17, 2011
U.N. Approves Airstrikes to Halt Attacks by Qaddafi Forces
By DAN BILEFSKY and KAREEM FAHIM
UNITED NATIONS — The United Nations Security Council approved a measure on Thursday authorizing “all necessary measures” to protect Libyan civilians from harm at the hands of forces loyal to Colonel Muammar el-Qaddafi.
The measure allows not only a no-fly zone but effectively any measures short of a ground invasion to halt attacks that might result in civilian fatalities. It comes as Colonel Qaddafi warned residents of Benghazi, Libya, the rebel capital, that an attack was imminent and promised lenient treatment for those who offered no resistance.
“We are coming tonight,” Colonel Qaddafi said. “You will come out from inside. Prepare yourselves from tonight. We will find you in your closets.”
Speaking on a call-in radio show, he promised amnesty for those “who throw their weapons away” but “no mercy or compassion” for those who fight. Explosions were heard in Benghazi early Friday, unnerving residents there, Agence-France Presse reported.
The United States, originally leery of any military involvement in Libya, became a strong proponent of the resolution, particularly after the Arab League approved a no-fly zone, something that Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton called a “game changer”
With the recent advances made by pro-Qaddafi forces in the east, there was a growing consensus in the Obama administration that imposing a no-fly zone by itself would no longer make much of a difference and that there was a need for more aggressive airstrikes that would make targets of Colonel Qaddafi’s tanks and heavy artillery — an option sometimes referred to as a no-drive zone. The United States or its allies might also send military personnel to advise and train the rebels, an official said.
In the most strident verbal attack on Colonel Qaddafi to date by an American official, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Thursday that the Western powers had little choice but to provide critical military backing for the rebels. “We want to support the opposition who are standing against the dictator,” she told an applauding audience in Tunisia on Thursday. “This is a man who has no conscience and will threaten anyone in his way.”
She added that Colonel Qaddafi would do “terrible things” to Libya and its neighbors. “It’s just in his nature. There are some creatures that are like that.”
The Qaddafi government responded to the potential United Nations action with threats.
“Any foreign military act against Libya will expose all air and maritime traffic in the Mediterranean Sea to danger and civilian and military facilities will become targets of Libya’s counter-attack,” it said in a statement carried on Libyan television and the official news agency, JANA, Reuters reported. “The Mediterranean basin will face danger not just in the short-term, but also in the long-term.”
More at LINK
March 17, 2011
U.N. Approves Airstrikes to Halt Attacks by Qaddafi Forces
By DAN BILEFSKY and KAREEM FAHIM
UNITED NATIONS — The United Nations Security Council approved a measure on Thursday authorizing “all necessary measures” to protect Libyan civilians from harm at the hands of forces loyal to Colonel Muammar el-Qaddafi.
The measure allows not only a no-fly zone but effectively any measures short of a ground invasion to halt attacks that might result in civilian fatalities. It comes as Colonel Qaddafi warned residents of Benghazi, Libya, the rebel capital, that an attack was imminent and promised lenient treatment for those who offered no resistance.
“We are coming tonight,” Colonel Qaddafi said. “You will come out from inside. Prepare yourselves from tonight. We will find you in your closets.”
Speaking on a call-in radio show, he promised amnesty for those “who throw their weapons away” but “no mercy or compassion” for those who fight. Explosions were heard in Benghazi early Friday, unnerving residents there, Agence-France Presse reported.
The United States, originally leery of any military involvement in Libya, became a strong proponent of the resolution, particularly after the Arab League approved a no-fly zone, something that Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton called a “game changer”
With the recent advances made by pro-Qaddafi forces in the east, there was a growing consensus in the Obama administration that imposing a no-fly zone by itself would no longer make much of a difference and that there was a need for more aggressive airstrikes that would make targets of Colonel Qaddafi’s tanks and heavy artillery — an option sometimes referred to as a no-drive zone. The United States or its allies might also send military personnel to advise and train the rebels, an official said.
In the most strident verbal attack on Colonel Qaddafi to date by an American official, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Thursday that the Western powers had little choice but to provide critical military backing for the rebels. “We want to support the opposition who are standing against the dictator,” she told an applauding audience in Tunisia on Thursday. “This is a man who has no conscience and will threaten anyone in his way.”
She added that Colonel Qaddafi would do “terrible things” to Libya and its neighbors. “It’s just in his nature. There are some creatures that are like that.”
The Qaddafi government responded to the potential United Nations action with threats.
“Any foreign military act against Libya will expose all air and maritime traffic in the Mediterranean Sea to danger and civilian and military facilities will become targets of Libya’s counter-attack,” it said in a statement carried on Libyan television and the official news agency, JANA, Reuters reported. “The Mediterranean basin will face danger not just in the short-term, but also in the long-term.”
More at LINK
Similar threads
