Thanks Canada! for the Supporting UK and France.


Canadian planes arrived at Prestwick in Scotland on the way to Libya.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srjVBEXgDws

srjVBEXgDws

Thanks Canada! for the Supporting UK and France.



I know you have good intentions, but be careful how you phrase things. Comments like that harken back to colonial attitudes. We aren't so much supporting the UK and France, but supporting the Libyan people against a dictator bent on control at all costs.

I know you have good intentions, but be careful how you phrase things. Comments like that harken back to colonial attitudes. We aren't so much supporting the UK and France, but supporting the Libyan people against a dictator bent on control at all costs.

It was UK and France that tabled motion at UN.
and I am a colonial thank you.......( from a crown dependency )

but I know what you mean.

I'm glad Canada is assisting with the efforts, even though our military is underfunded, we STILL have the capability to do these things on more than one front.
Canada can be great again.

I know you have good intentions, but be careful how you phrase things. Comments like that harken back to colonial attitudes. We aren't so much supporting the UK and France, but supporting the Libyan people against a dictator bent on control at all costs.

I hadn't realized that Canadians were so butt-hurt over having been a colony. Recall that it was the Americans who couldn't stand being a colony for one more minute and had to take to killing Brits.

I'm glad Canada is assisting with the efforts, even though our military is underfunded


Underfunded? Canada's military budget is the 13th largest in the world and accounts for 1.3% of GDP, which is on par with every other western country aside from the US.


It was UK and France that tabled motion at UN.


Yes, but Canada (most likely) did not contribute for the sake of the UK and France, but because it was deemed a worthy cause.

Underfunded? Canada's military budget is the 13th largest in the world and accounts for 1.3% of GDP, which is on par with every other western country aside from the US. .


Hmm... I have a bunch of friends in the navy, and that specific arm of the military is hurting bad. We may have enough money to put into our military, but it's not working...

So technically it is very underfunded. And money distributed is ridiculous.

I hadn't realized that Canadians were so butt-hurt over having been a colony. Recall that it was the Americans who couldn't stand being a colony for one more minute and had to take to killing Brits.

Right ... :sly:

Right ... :sly:

Needs more clarification. 'Right', what ?

So a good chunk of the nation is involved in war. Does this mean it is world war 3?

This thread is stupid.

To be honest, I'm not entirely sure about this operation ... especially considering how eager the French and the British were to get the ball rolling. Both countries have a history of sketchy behaviour in North Africa ... the British with their shady dealings with the Gadhaffi regime and the French with their well known ties with the ousted Tunisian regime. I do hope that we are actually helping out the Libyan people and not just helping the cause of some third parties.

I'm glad Canada is assisting with the efforts, even though our military is underfunded, we STILL have the capability to do these things on more than one front.
Canada can be great again.

:cheers:

I hadn't realized that Canadians were so butt-hurt over having been a colony. Recall that it was the Americans who couldn't stand being a colony for one more minute and had to take to killing Brits.
It has to do with the OP being a bit trollish when it comes to British colony issues.

It's not about Canada having been a colony, it's about Canada still being treated like a colony instead of Britain's equal (and in a few decades, its superior).

What an odd turn this thread took. I see no "colonial attitude" in the original post, simply a chance to post the CF-18 leaving Prestwick and to say "thank you". I may be old, but I believe the proper reply to that is still "you're welcome".

I'm not quite sure, if it was the right decision to participate (indirectly) in these actions...

It has to do with the OP being a bit trollish when it comes to British colony issues.

It's not about Canada having been a colony, it's about Canada still being treated like a colony instead of Britain's equal (and in a few decades, its superior).

Which of course in no way negates my question.

Stupid decision. Canada had no business getting itself involved in a war that was spearheaded by Sarkozy (a man on par with Gaddafi in terms of insanity).

This intervention is just going to make matter far worse for the Libyan people. What human intervention? It's all about the oil!

Stupid decision. Canada had no business getting itself involved in a war that was spearheaded by Sarkozy (a man on par with Gaddafi in terms of insanity).

This intervention is just going to make matter far worse for the Libyan people. What human intervention? It's all about the oil!

If it were for the oil, just doing nothing, would have been much easier thing to do. Gaddafi has been a pretty reliable partner in the past. Still, I think getting involved in that conflict was a mistake and I really hope there won't be any coalition ground forces. At some point they have to deal with their shit by themselves.

If it were for the oil, just doing nothing, would have been much easier thing to do. Gaddafi has been a pretty reliable partner in the past. Still, I think getting involved in that conflict was a mistake and I really hope there won't be any coalition ground forces. At some point they have to deal with their shit by themselves.

If this were about human intervention, they would go into Yemen or Bahrain where truly horrid things are occurring. The uprising in Libya was on its last breath and peace was going to come back... Now, another war is going to start and the Libyan people will suffer.

What about the significant part of the population which remains loyal to Gaddafi? Aren't their opinions just as valid as the rebels'? There are a few Libyan international students at my university and all of them were protesting the intervention and the fact that they support Gaddafi.

Finally, I think this speaks for itself:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5d/UN_Human_Development_Report_2010_1.PNG

Libya is the most developed country in Africa in terms of the Human Development Index (HDI). Whatever Gaddafi is doing seems to be helping the country.

Wow, they're doing better than Serbia even. Amazing.

Wow, they're doing better than Serbia even. Amazing.
Ah, tellement pathetic.. Vid, my time on SSC would be boring without you!

Ironically the rebels are propped up by Al Qaida... Nice to know we're 'freedomizing' Libya and giving it to extremists.

Keep it classy Sarkozy (& Co)

I don't believe for a second that the rebels are being supported by AQ but the point remains that it is not immediately obvious that we should be involved in this. Not just Canada but any foreign country for that matter. If France and the UK were so adamant about this ... good for them. Libya is much closer to them that it is to Canada. They have much stronger economic and trade relations with Libya than Canada. Those two countries have big enough militaries ... they could carried out these operations by themselves but I guess they wanted more countries involved to validate their intervention.

Either way, despite the fact that I have my reservations about this entire operation, I'm not entirely opposed to it either. I just think that we should fully acknowledge the ground reality rather than operate on false morals.

If this were about human intervention, they would go into Yemen or Bahrain where truly horrid things are occurring. The uprising in Libya was on its last breath and peace was going to come back... Now, another war is going to start and the Libyan people will suffer.

What about the significant part of the population which remains loyal to Gaddafi? Aren't their opinions just as valid as the rebels'? There are a few Libyan international students at my university and all of them were protesting the intervention and the fact that they support Gaddafi.

Finally, I think this speaks for itself:

Libya is the most developed country in Africa in terms of the Human Development Index (HDI). Whatever Gaddafi is doing seems to be helping the country.

What is worse in Yemen and Bahrain? Are those countries bombarding protestors as well? No they are not, which is s slight difference between Libya and the rest. The only alternative would have been to intervene in Libya, Bahrain, Yemen and Saudi Arabia at the same time. Considering the fact that most of NATO's military power is concentrated in Iraq and Afghanistan, the strong Saudi Arabian army and that country being the biggest oil exporter all over the planet, this is just not possible. Oil is their nuclear bomb. Libya happened to be the first dictatorship, where the crazy leader started shooting protestors. Now he has to deal with it and it's not like Gadaffi has no history:

Remember this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Salim_prison

Over 1,600 people were killed within two hours and later embedded in concrete. Back then the international community didn't do anything, due to oil interests. Now stating they are doing the opposite because of the oil is obscure. The west just can't do it right in this matter. It will always be labeled as oil intervention.

Also it would have been interesting to get an UN-Resolution for all those countries.

Dunno about your country, but the one I am living in right now doesn't paint your description. I walked by an anti-Gaddafi demonstration the other day in Vienna. No Gaddafi sympathizer anywhere near. Just the difference between Gaddafi sympathizer and those protesting against him is quite obvious. First get to say, what they are thinking, whereas the others are gunned down for doing the same.

AQ propping up the protestors? Well Muammar, you just gave yourself away. :lol:

Canada is part of the alliance that was formed and has to participate as per that agreement with the countries involved - i forget what its called but its similiar to NATO

Canada is part of the alliance that was formed and has to participate as per that agreement with the countries involved - i forget what its called but its similiar to NATO

Coalition?

Actually it is the NATO. Operation's headquarter is in Stuttgart and all the leading nations are involved (apart from Germany).

okay than thats the name lol

i don't pay attention to news or politics my bad

Two C F 18'S flew over our St-Paddy's parade today. :happy: http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5138/5545284366_cddfee429d_b.jpg

What is worse in Yemen and Bahrain? Are those countries bombarding protestors as well? No they are not, which is s slight difference between Libya and the rest. The only alternative would have been to intervene in Libya, Bahrain, Yemen and Saudi Arabia at the same time. Considering the fact that most of NATO's military power is concentrated in Iraq and Afghanistan, the strong Saudi Arabian army and that country being the biggest oil exporter all over the planet, this is just not possible. Oil is their nuclear bomb. Libya happened to be the first dictatorship, where the crazy leader started shooting protestors. Now he has to deal with it and it's not like Gadaffi has no history:

Remember this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Salim_prison

Over 1,600 people were killed within two hours and later embedded in concrete. Back then the international community didn't do anything, due to oil interests. Now stating they are doing the opposite because of the oil is obscure. The west just can't do it right in this matter. It will always be labeled as oil intervention.

Also it would have been interesting to get an UN-Resolution for all those countries.

Dunno about your country, but the one I am living in right now doesn't paint your description. I walked by an anti-Gaddafi demonstration the other day in Vienna. No Gaddafi sympathizer anywhere near. Just the difference between Gaddafi sympathizer and those protesting against him is quite obvious. First get to say, what they are thinking, whereas the others are gunned down for doing the same.

AQ propping up the protestors? Well Muammar, you just gave yourself away. :lol:
Ok, first of all there is a clear line between protesters and armed rebels.. I assume that definition shouldn't be lost on anyone, especially proponents of an intervention.

Protesters in Yemen were gassed and the army fired live ammunition into them. Similarly, in Bahrain, the Saudi army which was sent in for support has been indiscriminately killing, this is available on all news sources.

Furthermore you mention the prison killings. Yes, notorious, possibly true, possibly not all true - yet you seem to forget what goes on in Guantanamo.. Should we bomb the United States too? Hell, their human rights record is on the order of thousands of times worse than Libya's.
There were also pro-Gaddafi demonstrations for every anti-Gaddafi ones... Face it, a large portion of the country supports him.. Does a rebel minority deserve to topple a government which continues to have widespread support?

Finally, about Al Qaida.. It is unfortunate you showed your ignorance on current events in such a manner. A quick google search will prove that Al-Qaida has released statements in favour of the rebels who are going to instil strong 'Islamic' values back onto Libya... In fact one of the major leaders of the rebels has strong ties with AQ... Guess you should really read up before you type.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8391632/Libya-the-West-and-al-Qaeda-on-the-same-side.html

cheers

I just think this decision may lead to more military fronts in other rebelling Arab nations. Are we going to be expected to intervene in Yemen or Bahrain now that we are in the business of overthrowing autocratic tyrants? And what if more uprisings start to spring up across the middle east? When is the mideast going to become responsible for itself instead of the west?

I dont like the implications of this decision.

Wow, they're doing better than Serbia even. Amazing.

I think Serbia & Montenegro have some bad memories from Canadian contribution in 1999 Nato strikes on SRB/MNE. Be sure that now when it is time to renew the national carrier's fleet, they will always consider Brazilian E-Jets over Bombardier. Americans were flying high with their Boeing orders in 70s and 80s, but things changed a lot. Montenegro is already EMB customer.

Going back to this issue now, I would rather fork out the cash on the economy other than burning it in Libya. Let alone the aging infrastructure in the GTA.

I just think this decision may lead to more military fronts in other rebelling Arab nations. Are we going to be expected to intervene in Yemen or Bahrain now that we are in the business of overthrowing autocratic tyrants? And what if more uprisings start to spring up across the middle east? When is the mideast going to become responsible for itself instead of the west?

I dont like the implications of this decision.

Agreed. This seems like a very poorly thought out operation where no one (at least no Canadian leader) is certain what the ultimate goal is. Everyone from every part of this coalition is saying a different thing.

I am far from being a Gaddafi supporter but I just don't think that this was the best course of action. What if Gaddafi does not surrender and is able to maintain his control indefinitely? Are we going to land our troops on Libyan soil? I think the US had the right idea when they were just sitting on the sidelines quietly but now it seems that they have taken the lead role in this military operation. I just don't understand ... do they enjoy being reviled across the globe?

I work with a number of extremely well educated Libyans, and none of them have ever had anything but bad things to say about Ghadaffi (if they said anything at all)... things such as people disappearing if they said anything remotely bad about the leader and so on.

I'm a bit nervous about the legitimacy of interfering in the internal politics of Libya so quickly. Last week "the experts" were saying it was of little practical use to have a no fly zone. This week, "the experts" say it is "A good Start but perhaps too little too late". I think we all remember that "the experts" were dead wrong about Iraq. I don't think anyone really knows wtf is happening, and whether or not this is simply opening up a new extended and never ending civil war. Harper is being veryhawkish about it all; I guess he has been thirsting for a juicy war ever since sitting on the sidelines for the Iraq issue.

I'm a bit nervous about the legitimacy of interfering in the internal politics of Libya so quickly. Last week "the experts" were saying it was of little practical use to have a no fly zone. This week, "the experts" say it is "A good Start but perhaps too little too late". I think we all remember that "the experts" were dead wrong about Iraq. I don't think anyone really knows wtf is happening, and whether or not this is simply opening up a new extended and never ending civil war. Harper is being veryhawkish about it all; I guess he has been thirsting for a juicy war ever since sitting on the sidelines for the Iraq issue.
The UK and France pushed it the hardest. Just last week Canada was still on the fence (according to the media) along with the US; up until pro-Qaddafi forces started making major inroads and it looked like the rebels would completely collapse.

The Prime Minister of Britain is sounding an awful lot like Tony Blair did before Iraq... I think that is what is making me the most nervous. That weirdly defensive and strident self confidence like we are carrying out God's Will. One of "the experts" noted that his political future will very much depend on "whether this is a success or not". Duh... do ya think??? Can't argue with that logic.

The Prime Minister of Britain is sounding an awful lot like Tony Blair did before Iraq... I think that is what is making me the most nervous. That weirdly defensive and strident self confidence like we are carrying out God's Will. One of "the experts" noted that his political future will very much depend on "whether this is a success or not". Duh... do ya think??? Can't argue with that logic.

I am pleased you posted the above - British PM is how Brits are like
today, they has been changes in culture of UK and Brits are much more
aggressive and know longer reserved.
David Cameron reflects modern Britain today and what British politicians
are about.
Britian has changed and linking into the London olympics next year
it will be used as a "rebranding exercise" for what UK is about today.

For many people out side the UK it could be a shock - to how modern
Brits come across and what UK is about in 2011/12 - very self confident,and British Prime Minister is a prime example. and he is out of the Thatcher camp!

expect more.......

War is part of the free market. American, France and Britain are the 3 largest weapons/munitions exporters in the world. So it's no surpirse to see them trying to out do each other in Libya and show off their hardware.

Why didn't they just send in special forces to assasinate Ghadafi?

France, Italy and the rest of the EU were making deals with Ghadafi to keep illegal immigrants out of Europe. Now only a couple months later they're declaring war on him. Something stinks to high hell.

Overall I think there is no 'good' stance to this at all. On one hand, Gadaffi promised a massacre of everyone who went against him, on the other hand we have absolutely no business sticking our noses into places where we don't belong.

Meanwhile complicating all of this is the fact that Gaddafi is pretty horrible guy in general and the 'international community' is just using this as an excuse to get rid of one of their most hated persons. There's speculation that the Arab League is supporting this, even though many Arab countries have repressive governments just because their leaders personally hate Gadaffi. The only problem is, who's going to replace him? We replaced the Taliban in Afghanistan only to have Afghanistan be rated the second most corrupt country in the world 10 years later.

I'm feeling yet one more Vietnam coming along....

The United States are single handedly the cause for most of the world's conflicts.

Well, they may have historically had a connection, but in the present they have not been the main instigators here. We must resist
the urge to turn this into a finger pointing thread, or it will dissolve into an angry scrap with our neighbours.

War is part of the free market. American, France and Britain are the 3 largest weapons/munitions exporters in the world. So it's no surpirse to see them trying to out do each other in Libya and show off their hardware.

Why didn't they just send in special forces to assasinate Ghadafi?

France, Italy and the rest of the EU were making deals with Ghadafi to keep illegal immigrants out of Europe. Now only a couple months later they're declaring war on him. Something stinks to high hell.

I am going to have to agree on you on this one. Very well spoken.

Obama should grow a spine and return his farce of a Nobel Peace Prize. He's just as much of an instigator of war as his predecessor.

^^ Flip,what drugs are you on? Defending Gaddafi means they must be pretty powerful. The instigator of war here is your friend Muammar.

My Spiderman-sense tells me that this thread will have a shorter shelf life than ice cream during a power failure in July! ;)

^^ Flip,what drugs are you on? Defending Gaddafi means they must be pretty powerful. The instigator of war here is your friend Muammar.

Oh please, what koolaid have you been drinking from our dear war-mongering neighbours to the south?

I am not defending Gaddafi, I am simply against an intervention that will cause many more casualties, many more hardships and a decimated infrastructure for the Libyan people. Also, such blatant propaganda being spewed in favour of an intervention is sickening. A civil war is just that, a civil war.. It does not require any foreign nose-poking; not to mention the wonderful Islamic extremist state which is bound to pop up if Gaddafi loses.

Since when is supporting Islamic militants part of our foreign policy and since when are armed rebels considered protestors? This is embarrassing.

^^ When innocent civilians are being murdered however, that civil war becomes an issue of the UN, and thus a global conflict.

That is hard to say.. The UN regulations versus human rights and humanitarian intervention are very open to interpretation.

Rwanda, Yemen, Sudan, ISRAEL.. All countries where humanitarian intervention should have happened because hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians were being killed - yet nothing happened. This just shows the hypocrisy of this western intervention.. Obviously the coalition saw an advantage in Libya and took it. Oil comes to mind, then its strategic position within Africa and the Mediterranean.

Rwanda, Yemen, Sudan, ISRAEL.. All countries where humanitarian intervention should have happened because hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians were being killed - yet nothing happened. This just shows the hypocrisy of this western intervention..


So is it better to never prevent any genocide ever, or to be hypocritical but at least stop some of them some of the time?

So is it better to never prevent any genocide ever, or to be hypocritical but at least stop some of them some of the time?

Sitting on your ass while massive civilian casualties were happening for nearly a decade (in Sudan, Rwanda, Yemen) and Israel (decades) while intervening in the case of Libya after what? Conservatively speaking three weeks of fighting? That's the hypocrisy.

Man some of you are such bloodthirsty degenerates.. It's what's worrying me here the most.

Why mention Sudan, Rwanda, and Yemen? I'm with monkey on this. Past mistakes and interventions not taken should not be used as an excuse to not take action.

A UN resolution was passed supporting this 'mission,' which included Security Council votes from Bosnia and Herzegovina, Colombia, Gabon, Lebanon, Nigeria, Portugal, South Africa, and permanent members France, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Additionally, the Arab League has supported this militaristic intervention.

Why mention Sudan, Rwanda, and Yemen? I'm with monkey on this. Past mistakes and interventions not taken should not be used as an excuse to not take action.

A UN resolution was passed supporting this 'mission,' which included Security Council votes from Bosnia and Herzegovina, Colombia, Gabon, Lebanon, Nigeria, Portugal, South Africa, and permanent members France, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Additionally, the Arab League has supported this militaristic intervention.

Why mention them? Because in some of them fighting continues and losses are on orders of magnitude larger than in Libya. Why don't we extend some freedomizing to those countries? Hell, their people would probably welcome it with open arms.

This seemingly random attack on Libya is nothing but French colonial fetishism returning in the form of our dear Napoleon-complex idiot of a French president. America being trigger happy at every opportunity saluted this with open arms. Obama = Bush, seems like education and charisma doesn't hide the fact that both were itching for a new war the second they sat in office.

It sounds like what you are suggesting is because military intervention has been late or nonexistent in those examples you provided, no intervention in the name of protecting a civilian population from a murderous 'leader' should occur. I don't think the argument should be because nations have failed to live up to the "Responsibility to Protect" pledge in the past means we should view it as wrong to do so now. Or more simply, failure to correct wrongs in the past does not mean we should let current wrongs go unchecked.

How do you rationalize the support of the Arab League in supporting the no-fly zone, and African nations like Gabon and Nigeria who have voted for the UN Resolution? I read that certain Middle East nations will be contributing militarily as well.

I do agree, though, that there is a large amount of hypocrisy and inaction that plagues interventionist actions.

It sounds like what you are suggesting is because military intervention has been late or nonexistent in those examples you provided, no intervention in the name of protecting a civilian population from a murderous 'leader' should occur. I don't think the argument should be because nations have failed to live up to the "Responsibility to Protect" pledge in the past means we should view it as wrong to do so now. Or more simply, failure to correct wrongs in the past does not mean we should let current wrongs go unchecked.

How do you rationalize the support of the Arab League in supporting the no-fly zone, and African nations like Gabon and Nigeria who have voted for the UN Resolution? I read that certain Middle East nations will be contributing militarily as well.

I do agree, though, that there is a large amount of hypocrisy and inaction that plagues interventionist actions.

Oh please, just read some of the headlines of today... This is an act of war and aggression pure and simple. We are aiding Al Qaeda terrorists gain a foothold in Saharan Africa, this is absolutely unacceptable and cannot be condoned.
In recent news, the US army shoots six rebels who ran to help the downed pilots after their fighter jet was shot down... Nice, shoot first, ask questions later. The national mantra of the United States of America... Sounds like humanitarian intervention or an act of open war to you?

Harper's head will roll over this.

Man some of you are such bloodthirsty degenerates.. It's what's worrying me here the most.

I know it is expected for me to insult people when debating things because I am an uneducated, impoverished Liberal whack-job who has no life experience and doesn't know any better, but why do you do it so often?

I know it is expected for me to insult people when debating things because I am an uneducated, impoverished Liberal whack-job who has no life experience and doesn't know any better, but why do you do it so often?

Seeing the joy some forumers get (not this thread exactly, but more in the DLM or Skybar) by bombing foreign countries is sickening.

The only thing I can say is 'bloodthirsty degenerates'.

Well, I guess we can agree to disagree. ;)

Ah...

So let's dispense with the smokescreen: though the 'thaw' between the West and Gadaffi is now old news, the truth is that Gadaffi was hard to work with and a loose canon. The truth is also that an increasing number of Gadaffi allies was shifting gears; the West has sense that Gadaffi's jig could be up before shots were even fired. Since Libya also happens to be a rich oil country, our interest here is pragmatic. We want to secure (very) good relations with the new rulers. Hence the limited war.

Don't believe me? Think it's has to be a humanitarian crisis? Certainly, rebel-controlled areas will want us to see it that way. We do get a lot of stories, but they are unsubstantiated: for example, the tale of the (black) African mercenaries terrorizing the country side managed to get a lot of airplay few weeks ago. It's revealing in exactly this way: Gadaffi is actually surprisingly enlightened about race (and he isn't enlightened about many things); most of the country certainly isn't, and so a racist play where black mercenaries are killing the Libyans is certainly going to get the blood of Libyans boiling. It was domestic propaganda that went international, yet there's not much evidence to confirm it at all--and lots about it that makes no sense.

But who cares: we could still get democracy out of this! That's highly unlikely. Libya has exceedingly poor state institutions and those don't spring up over night. One has to have some semblance of a true state before we can talk of democracy. That's not enough, but it's a start. No: Libya in some ways really is a lot like Afghanistan. It's tribal, and whoever seizes power will in effect be the new warlord. Probably someone we'll be able to do business with, but certainly no democrat. It will be interesting to see who wins out in the current alliance of interests and tribes: they won't all. They will be friendly to us, though--that's the price of support.

And of course: there is that other issue. The one of Bahrain. Although the news is (BARELY!) reporting unrest there, what's actually happening is a sectarian conflict between the marginalized Shiite majority and the ruling Sunni minority. Nothing new here, it's the old playbook. But it just also happens that the US, Europe, and for that matter Canada, have veeery good relations with Bahrain. So, the kingdom can fire off live ammunition into the crowds, and nobody is going to say a peep about it (unless it becomes clear that the kingdom is going down, which as of this writing looks exceedingly unlikely). Certainly, nobody is going to be calling for the old bombs for peace.

There is certainly tons of hypocrisy here. The Brits released the Lockerbie bomber few years ago in order to secure some oil deals in Libya for BP yet the Lockerbie bombing is now being cited as one of the reasons why Gaddafi should be removed. The French were no where to be seen when their sweetheart Tunisian regime was on the brink but when it comes to Libya, they seem extremely keen to get into action. I bet that if the protests in Morocco gain momentum, the French will once again go back into their shell considering that the Moroccan regime is also a dear friend of the French ruling elites. The way I see it, Libyan regime was the easiest to make an example out of because Gaddafi's craziness has turned the country into an international hermit. When it comes to other countries (Egypt, for example, which was a close ally of the US) and most of the GCC countries and Israel, all of whom are also allies of the US, we can forget about military action of this scale.

With that said, my primary problem with this coalition is the fact that it was formed without any stated goals. This is a recipe for disaster. We have already seen what happened in Iraq. They initially go over with the "goal" of removing WMDs but once it becomes evident that Iraq never had any nuclear weapons, the US conveniently changed its goals to "Oh, now we are here to protect civilians" ... which is pretty much exactly what this Libyan intervention is supposedly about. I do appreciate the fact the coalition spared the city of Benghazi from falling back into Gaddafi's hands because that might have triggered widespread killings but I am highly skeptical of what their plans are for the future.

With that said, my primary problem with this coalition is the fact that it was formed without any stated goals. This is a recipe for disaster.

I agree. I was watching some ex-military commanders from the US being interviewed and they also brought this up as well. Without clear and explicit goals, how are we to know when the mission is complete?

It deliberately has no goal.. This assures that they can occupy until heart's content.

Americans are occupiers!

I find it funny how the US can find some extra cash to occupy a third Muslim country with it's limitless defense budget, yet is cutting Union rights and job opportunities at home and claiming its citizens need to tighten their belts so the military can bomb some more brown people for political means.

I was reading that each cruise missile the military owns costs anywhere from $500,000-$600,000, and they just launched 100 of them in one night. I'm sure that if they trimmed their defense budget by even 20% they could solve a lot of problems back in their own country...

This is the stuff Skybar is made of.