# Canada is Sending CF-18's to Libya



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

We've been preparing for this. They'll be en route bright and early

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/africa-mideast/canada-joins-un-call-for-military-action-in-libya/article1945738/


----------



## John W. (Mar 6, 2011)

mode3sour said:


> We've been preparing for this. They'll be en route bright and early
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/africa-mideast/canada-joins-un-call-for-military-action-in-libya/article1945738/


What a horrific threat by Gadhafi.... “It’s over. We are coming tonight,” the Libyan leader told the residents of Benghazi on Thursday night in his latest rambling television broadcast. “We will find you in your closets; we will have no mercy and no pity.”

It's late coming, but finally this dictator will be a victim of his own circumstance.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

They left even faster than I expected


----------



## Addy (Mar 12, 2010)

I've never wished death on anyone before, but I hope they get that *******, and his sons!


----------



## CanadianCapitalist (Mar 31, 2009)

It may be a little late but this is the right thing to do. I don't understand why Obama dithered on at least threatening military action. Gadhafi isn't exactly a best friend of the US. But then who knows what calculations are made behind closed doors.


----------



## K-133 (Apr 30, 2010)

CanadianCapitalist said:


> It may be a little late but this is the right thing to do. I don't understand why Obama dithered on at least threatening military action. Gadhafi isn't exactly a best friend of the US. But then who knows what calculations are made behind closed doors.


Probably because when they do so, they are seen as the bad guy. It is perhaps an effort to change their image. This way, they are seen as cooperative. I find it intriguing that India and Germany abstained on the vote. I also am curious with the motives of France on this matter.

Personally, I feel this is the right thing, but its sad that it took them so long to agree on such a logical resolution. My fear is now that the rebels will be the ones to break the cease fire.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

There have been American aircraft carriers nearby, but I agree that Obama is trying to change their image here. They want the UAE and other countries to spearhead the offensive, which is not a bad thing. A UN mission should be a diverse mix of countries


----------



## John W. (Mar 6, 2011)

Certainly a very provocative question. Was the no-fly zone decision, too late? Well, I'm certain for one thing though and that is, that a decision of that importance has to be decided by a majority who wishes the best of an outcome. And this takes time, unfortunately. If we tell this to the families of those who have been killed, it will be very difficult to accept. God Bless Them.

As for Gadhafi, they will now persue him and when he has been apprehended will be faced with war crimes. All are deemed to be innocent before they are found guilty. That will be a hard reasoning to stomach knowing what that madman accomplished in such a short time without any concern obviously as the world watched in horror.


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

I was disappointed/puzzled by India & Brazil, but not in the least by China, Germany & Russia. 

I think it's pretty self-explanatory as to why Germany decided to abstain, but as for China & Russia....hmmm, I better not say more, except that at least they did not vote against it and hence, the resolution was approved!


----------



## liquidfinance (Jan 28, 2011)

Now there is an apparent cease fire. What does he have up his sleeve. I can't see him giving up this easy.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

CanadianCapitalist said:


> It may be a little late but this is the right thing to do. I don't understand why Obama dithered on at least threatening military action.


He didn't want to make hollow threats unilaterally.
He doesn't want to get entrenced in Libya the way his esteemed predecessor did in Afghanistan and Iraq.
So I bet there has been a lot of diplomatic discussions behind the scenes last few days for the UN security council and the Western power to make a joint decision.
Their hesitation is justified.
Libya's revolt is purely an internal matter, much more than the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam in Iraq.


----------



## K-133 (Apr 30, 2010)

Toronto.gal said:


> I was disappointed/puzzled by India & Brazil, but not in the least by China, Germany & Russia.
> 
> I think it's pretty self-explanatory as to why Germany decided to abstain, but as for China & Russia....hmmm, I better not say more, except that at least they did not vote against it and hence, the resolution was approved!


I get China and Russia. Can you explain your understanding of Germany's position? I'm very curious.


----------



## John W. (Mar 6, 2011)

liquidfinance said:


> Now there is an apparent cease fire. What does he have up his sleeve. I can't see him giving up this easy.


The latest news out of Libya is that there is no cease fire. Gadhafi's scoundrels are still on the ground going at it. Obviously there has to be some groundwork against Gadhafi if this continues. He will use every means available to hurt those who oppose him. Like Saddam Hussein, he will be taken down.


----------



## Beleriand (Jan 31, 2011)

The current situation is very interesting and unread in Libya. On the first face of it feels a camoflouage.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

Maybe it was an attempt to buy some time? Anyways it's too late, if they don't actually ceasefire there will be some precision guided presents from the sky


----------



## LondonHomes (Dec 29, 2010)

I am suprised that Germany abstained from voting. They fought so hard to get a seat on the security council and have desires for a permanent seat. what's the point of having a vote if they are not going to use it.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

I guess it's like a neutral stance, which is quite suiting for Germany lately. 

They have been known to hold back NATO AWACS participation while trying to avoid the embarrassment of doing so. They are the 2nd largest contributer to AWACS crews and Canada is 3rd

The multinational AWACS crew play a key role in a no-fly zone and it's now the same case for Libya

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/africa-mideast/as-nato-planes-circle-close-to-libya-leaders-remain-divided-on-response/article1933291/



> NATO seems split over how to cope with the worsening crisis in Libya. Some nations – notably Italy, which has had a long and close relationship with Col. Gadhafi and now has grave fears about a massive exodus of unwelcome Arab refugees


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

K-133 said:


> I get China and Russia. Can you explain your understanding of Germany's position? I'm very curious.


Do you know what killed the cat? 

I don't want to get too political or opinionated, but since you asked, I'll make a comment or two & hopefully I won't get stones thrown at me. 

*Brazil:* it is well known that given their own political history, that it does not like military intervention; I think the1964 coup d'état [or Revolution as they prefer to call it] is still very fresh in their minds. 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3588339.stm

Their reason was: "From our point of view, the text of the resolution in question would contain measures that go far beyond that call. We are not convinced that the use of force as stated in the operative paragraph 4 (OP4) of this resolution will lead to the realization of our common goal - an immediate end to violence and protect civilians." 

I think this is the paragraph in question:

*Protection of civilians:*

4. Authorises member states that have notified the secretary-general, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, and acting in co-operation with the secretary-general, to take all necessary measures, notwithstanding paragraph 9 of resolution 1970 (2011), to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory, and requests the member states concerned to inform the secretary-general immediately of the measures they take pursuant to the authorization conferred by this paragraph which shall be immediately reported to the Security Council.

*China:* no shocker here as for the most part, they always are against foreign intervention. Tibet rings a bell?

*Germany:* it was not a surprising decision because from the beginning they said they opposed military involvement & made no secret of it, so Germany's abstinence from voting, was in fact expected despite the fact that the EU endorsed the resolution; so much for unity in the EU. 

Officially the reason given was that they saw "considerable dangers and risks." 

As *Londonhomes* pointed out, they lobbied hard to get that UN seat and said: "Germany will be a reliable, responsible and engaged partner....we will do our part to ensure that the world continues to see the Council as the central body for peace and security in the world." 

*India:* this country puzzled me the most, but their reasoning was lack of clarity and details & said: "I m afraid that the two countries leading the process (UK and France) did not make the required effort."

*Russia:* - I'll skip comments, but their official response was fear of destabilizing the MENA region.


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

K-133 said:


> I also am curious with the motives of France on this matter.


You're a very curious person. 

Perhaps Monsieur Nicolás Sarkozy's motive was to annoy Germany, though more likely, he welcomed the distraction from his own political problems at home as apparently his popularity is at a record low!


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

It is reported that Hillary Clinton is fed up with Obama's dithering. 

In a recent interview that asked her if she would stay another term as Secretary of State, Vice-President, or run for President.........her replies were simple........no, no and no. Insiders say she is extremely frustrated by waiting around for some direction. Former President Bill Clinton was recently critical of Obama's lack of decision making as well.

The chances of a second Obama term are growing dimmer, as the US population views him as weak and indecisive. He is starting to be compared to Jimmy Carter.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

sags said:


> The chances of a second Obama term are growing dimmer, as the US population views him as weak and indecisive. He is starting to be compared to Jimmy Carter.


It will depend on what kind of competition he is facing. For sure, he will need a more substantial platform to run on.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

sags said:


> He is starting to be compared to Jimmy Carter.


Jimmy Carter had that nice southern Georgia accent!
I'd pick Carter just for that one reason


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

sags said:


> The chances of a second Obama term are growing dimmer, as the US population views him as weak and indecisive. He is starting to be compared to Jimmy Carter.


NO comparison, zippo, nada!

Let's see how much clever his clueless & misguided foreign policies [or any other policy for that matter] were:

Took him 444 days to release the American hostages in Iran. How long did he hold on to his position of *no force* before finally deciding on "Operation Eagle Claw," aka Desert One? Hostages were taken on Nov. 4/1979; military operation began only on April 24th, 1980, so if my math is right, that = 172 days.

Carter was slow & failed miserably & yet his biggest regret: "I guess my biggest failure was not getting reelected." Some have even said he helped create Islamic fundamentalism. Anyone read "I Accuse: Jimmy Carter and the Rise of Militant Islam." IMHO, his winning the Nobel Peace Prize was as unwarranted as was Obama's & the late terrorist Yasser Arafat.

Little wonder Reagan won in a landslide x2!

Not surprising, Gaddafi defied the ceasefire orders.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

Jet shot down

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3478243/Jet-shot-down-over-Libya.html


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I heard today they found a group of Libyan military officers in a building. Their hands were tied behind their back, and they were shot in the back of the head. They were executed for not following orders and killing their fellow people.

Ghaddafi is the head of the snake. Nobody is "loyal" to him. They just want to stay alive through this conflict, and hope Ghaddafi gets killed or leaves. 

The only way Ghaddafi keeps people loyal to him, is through fear of reprisals to their families.

Once Ghaddafi and family are no longer in control, the fighting will stop, Libyans will join together, and the west can leave immediately.

The US should locate him and drop a missile on his head. They could claim an errant missile.........nobody will care to challenge it.

The nail biters keep referring to Libya as another Afghanistan or Iraq. There is no Taliban or El Quaeda force in Libya..........just a madman with guns.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Jimmy Carter seemed an honest and caring type, but was too timid for the role of President of the US. Obama is viewed similarly, but given his background in peace movements and teaching assignments, it should have been expected.

Unfortunately, the real world isn't a classroom where you deal in theories and long discussions.

Lunatics have power in North Korea, Iran.........and other places, and they are dangerous to the rest of the world. Lunatics don't respond to discussions.

Teddy Roosevelt said "speak softly, but carry a big stick".

Obama speaks loudly, and the only stick he carries is a golf club.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The French fired first. They have been itching to have a go at Ghadaffi.

Is there a "history" here, because the French are usually pretty passive.


----------



## dogcom (May 23, 2009)

If the US still had Bush in power something would have been done right away. Of course he would have handed out all the sweet contracts so his buddies could make a ton of money while American soldiers died.


----------



## ghostryder (Apr 5, 2009)

CanadianCapitalist said:


> It may be a little late but this is the right thing to do. I don't understand why Obama dithered on at least threatening military action. Gadhafi isn't exactly a best friend of the US. But then who knows what calculations are made behind closed doors.



Maybe because the African Union (and formerly the OAU) haven't been able to go much more than 5 minutes without having a hissy fit while screaming "western imperialism" whenever any western country even thinks about intervening in anything that happens in Africa?


The AU has (last I heard) was unsupportive of any "no-fly zone" or any other foreign intervention.


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

dogcom said:


> If the US still had Bush in power something would have been done right away.


No doubt! Former President Reagan also wasted no time to launch airstrikes against Libya when Americans were targeted, killed & injured following a bombing at a Berlin disco in the 80's; an attack believed to have been on Gaddafi's orders.

Now the Western airstrikes on Gaddafi's forces came under criticism by the Arab League/African Union: "Amr Moussa said what was happening was not what Arabs had envisaged when they called for the imposition of a no-fly zone over Libya." What was their vision?!  

Even secular, EU hopeful Turkey, is conveniently staying out; they not only objected to the no-fly-zone, but also to the imposed sanctions, saying that they would hurt the Libyan people even though the sanctions had been against Gaddafi's forces, not the people. Perhaps the inaction may be due to the honour Gaddafi laid upon the Turkish PM just this past December. rolleyes: 

http://conservativepapers.com/news/...gaddafi-international-prize-for-human-rights/

Latest is that the Libyan military has called for a ceasefire; hopefully the 2 day Western airstrikes caused enough damage for them to give up.


----------



## ChrisR (Jul 13, 2009)

sags said:


> The French fired first. They have been itching to have a go at Ghadaffi.
> 
> Is there a "history" here, because the French are usually pretty passive.


The typically passive French have been known to act quickly and unilaterally when problems occur in their own backyard, so-to-speak. 

Parts of Libya (not including Tripoli) were once part of France's colonial empire (according to Wikipedia, which may or may not be correct). I suspect that this is the major reason for France's involvement.


----------



## ChrisR (Jul 13, 2009)

Toronto.gal said:


> IMHO, his winning the Nobel Peace Prize was as unwarranted as was Obama's & the late terrorist Yasser Arafat.


Despite his inability to end wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, or to improve peace in the middle east, Obama did have one major contribution to world peace that cannot be ignored.

He beat John (warmonger) McCain in the 2008 election!


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

Don't misunderstand me ChrisR, I happen to respect President Obama, however, I believe there were other more accomplished & deserving individuals for such a prestigious award. 

I don't for a minute take away the man's vision nor that he captured world attention, but IMHO, he is not a transformative figure [yet] & did not meet the Nobel Peace Prize requirements.


----------



## mrbizi (Dec 19, 2009)

ChrisR said:


> The typically passive French have been known to act quickly and unilaterally when problems occur in their own backyard, so-to-speak.
> 
> Parts of Libya (not including Tripoli) were once part of France's colonial empire (according to Wikipedia, which may or may not be correct). I suspect that this is the major reason for France's involvement.


A more cynical person would think that the reason why the French are not impassive in this case is that they are afraid that if Libya implodes they will then have to deal with the thousands upon thousand of refugees (same deal with Italy and Spain).

It doesn't hurt that Libya has a lot of oil in their deserts too!


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

US cruise missiles destroy an empty building in Gadhafi's compound. 

A journalist questions if the US has "targetted" Gadhafi.

Um.....no........if they had targetted him, they would have hit the building he was in, not the empty one a few hundred yards away.

One general answered it by saying, that while Gadhafi wasn't targetted specifically, if he happened to be inspecting a missile site, and they didn't know he was there(smirk, smirk), there might be an accident.

If he has any brains left at all, he will throw in the towel and leave Libya. If he stays, then he truly is mentally unbalanced.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

Canadian pilots call off a strike on a Libyan airfield. I'm picking out a new house so don't know the details, but it's always better to be safe than sorry!

http://www.thespec.com/news/canada/article/505155--canadian-fighters-abandon-planned-attack-on-libyan-airfield


----------



## cosmica76 (Jan 31, 2011)

In my opinion this military action is vain. I like prefer the diplomacy and coercion. Mostly it´s a better solution as an using guns.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

cosmica76 said:


> In my opinion this military action is vain. I like prefer the diplomacy and coercion. Mostly it´s a better solution as an using guns.


So how exactly do you use diplomacy and coercion in this case? I'm pretty sure they tried everything while civilians were being killed for weeks

It's easy to say that military action is vain until you actually understand the situation and see what is happening. The US has obviously gone too far in the past and I like to hear they don't want to occupy Libya this time. Ideally the rebels would take over the country with the help from above

If you're against bombing tanks used to massacre civilians, then maybe you should go convince Gadhafi to stop yourself with "diplomacy and coercion"


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

cosmica76 said:


> In my opinion this military action is vain. I like prefer the diplomacy and coercion. Mostly it´s a better solution as an using guns.


Have you not heard his repeated evil rants?!

When a country's leader refers to his people as 'rats & cockroaches' & orders his forces to bomb protesters, you're not dealing with a sane person. 

The man is a terrorist by present & past actions.


----------



## LondonHomes (Dec 29, 2010)

cosmica76 said:


> In my opinion this military action is vain. I like prefer the diplomacy and coercion. Mostly it´s a better solution as an using guns.


Is that a quote from Neville Chamberlain?


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

LondonHomes said:


> Is that a quote from Neville Chamberlain?


LOL, good one


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

It's nice to see an Op with an accomplishment in sight without dragging on for decades. A big difference is the rebels have fought for their own changes - their own country.

IMO we shouldn't even bother trying to help countries who aren't ready to help themselves. We're too weighed down by bureaucracy to do it for them.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1043838--this-is-the-beginning-of-the-end-of-the-gadhafi-regime-harper-says


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

The move toward flying killer robots should reduce the need for large, long-term boots-on-the-ground missions. They also make you wonder about all the money we're spending on F-35s when the whole program is a slow-motion trainwreck. Why should we be investing vast sums in the last generation of human-carrying combat aircraft?


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

Even the current US Air Force is 30+ years old - 5th gen fighters will be the norm for awhile now. In order to go all UAV's you need to restructure everything and you would need a new fleet of compatible AWACS etc. Waiting for this to happen would truly be a slow-motion train wreck and it would cost magnitudes more initially


----------

