Canada orders 1300 smart bombs

[Wilber]

But it would not be a mil-spec paint job...might throw off the munition's CG balance!

[GostHacked]

Yes it does. He could care less about killing the grandchildren of his own countrymen just to stay in power. We try and pick our targets, otherwise no need for smart bombs.

Well, Qadaffi like others, said he was battling elements of Al-Queda in his country. Are we now supporting Al-Queda?

We didn't start this war, we are acting in support of people who were initially trying to change their government by peaceful means. It was Qaddafi who started the killing yet you back him.

Indeed, we did not start this war, and we do NOT need to be involved in it. Technically it is a CIVIL war, just like in Egypt, Yemen, Bahrain, Tunisia,ectect.... So why are we in Lybia and not the other countries when guys like Ben Ali and Mubarek shot their own people? Are we going to go to Syria because of Asad having Syrians shot in the streets?

What is so different about Libya?

You think about it. The oil was flowing nicely before this happened. Who knows what will happen if there is a regime change in Libya. The west needs this like a hole in the head.

And the oil is still flowing. Qatar was the first country to recognize the rebels as the legit power within Libya and started doing buisness with them.

One thing though, it will be nice to see Mo finally get his comeuppance for the terrorist activities he has backed and taken part in over the past few decades. He has a lot of western blood on his hands.

Our own leaders have their fair share of western blood on their hands. More ground pounders for another meat grinder.

[WIP]

Looks to me like Harper is following the American conservative game plan: spend all the money on useless shit for the military, and then claim they have to cut health care and domestic spending to balance the budget.

[RNG]

Yeah but what good would dropping Pamela Anderson on Libya do?

Oh, sorry, my mistake... I thought you said dumb blondes.

I liked it.

But as far as the topic, I think a big difference is the scale of civilian deaths in Libya, although Syria is trying to catch up.

[Wilber]

Well, Qadaffi like others, said he was battling elements of Al-Queda in his country. Are we now supporting Al-Queda?

I'm sure you believed him.

Indeed, we did not start this war, and we do NOT need to be involved in it. Technically it is a CIVIL war, just like in Egypt, Yemen, Bahrain, Tunisia,ectect.... So why are we in Lybia and not the other countries when guys like Ben Ali and Mubarek shot their own people? Are we going to go to Syria because of Asad having Syrians shot in the streets?

What is so different about Libya?

The West can't win in your book. Can't do business with dictators nor support those who would try to get rid of them. Bad bad West.

And the oil is still flowing. Qatar was the first country to recognize the rebels as the legit power within Libya and started doing buisness with them.

What are you getting at? We should recognize them as well, should we still recognize Qaddafi, or should we wait till we find out who the winner is?

Our own leaders have their fair share of western blood on their hands. More ground pounders for another meat grinder.

And they have to answer for that to their own people during every election. But not in Moe's world.

[bush_cheney2004]

Looks to me like Harper is following the American conservative game plan...

No...it's the Charlie Sheen game plan. It is called "Winning".

[GostHacked]

I'm sure you believed him.

It's a common point among the leaders of these countries in North Africa and Middle East. They are all saying Al-Queda is one of the foreign entities causing shit within their borders.

Ben Ali, Mubarek, Assad, Gadaffi ... along with the leaders of Yemen and Bahrian.

Notice how we don't hear about Bahrian. The US 5th fleet is stationed there. Saudi Arabia came in and helped shut down the protests. Why would we be involved in shutting down the protests in Bahrain, but ramp up the protests in Libya?

The West can't win in your book. Can't do business with dictators nor support those who would try to get rid of them. Bad bad West.

We should just stay the fuck out of this. But watch for it. Libya won't be the last. Syria and Iran are on the list. The west is creating the problem to provide the solution.

What are you getting at? We should recognize them as well, should we still recognize Qaddafi, or should we wait till we find out who the winner is?

We already recognize them. This is why the UN/NATO are going in under 'humanitarian aid'.

And they have to answer for that to their own people during every election. But not in Moe's world.

Like I said, I am no fan of Gadaffi, but is boming up a country just to kill Gadaffi (which was not part of the orignal UN mandate for Libya .. his assassination was off the table) does not seem like 'humanitarian aid' to me.

It's like I am going to save your family by shooting your brother, when you are the real issue.

Do we really want another Afghanistan? Do we really want another Iraq?

Edited May 18, 2011 by GostHacked

[Wilber]

It's a common point among the leaders of these countries in North Africa and Middle East. They are all saying Al-Queda is one of the foreign entities causing shit within their borders.

Ben Ali, Mubarek, Assad, Gadaffi ... along with the leaders of Yemen and Bahrian.

Notice how we don't hear about Bahrian. The US 5th fleet is stationed there. Saudi Arabia came in and helped shut down the protests. Why would we be involved in shutting down the protests in Bahrain, but ramp up the protests in Libya?

We only have so much in the way of resources and have to pick our quarrels and it make sense to pick the ones that are most in our interests. That's just a fact of life in the big bad world because looking after our interests is what allows you and I to live the way we do.

We should just stay the fuck out of this. But watch for it. Libya won't be the last. Syria and Iran are on the list. The west is creating the problem to provide the solution.

Again, looking after our interests is a necessary fact of life. Oil is vital to the western economy, another fact of life. Sticking our heads in the sand is not an option.

We already recognize them. This is why the UN/NATO are going in under 'humanitarian aid'.

We are going in under "humanitarian aid" to keep them from getting massacred. We have not recognized them as a legitimate government of Libya.

Like I said, I am no fan of Gadaffi, but is boming up a country just to kill Gadaffi (which was not part of the orignal UN mandate for Libya .. his assassination was off the table) does not seem like 'humanitarian aid' to me.

It's like I am going to save your family by shooting your brother, when you are the real issue.

Do we really want another Afghanistan? Do we really want another Iraq?

Yet you are quite happy to let Qaddafi have his way. Killing Moe would be the most humanitarian thing we could do for that country.

[bloodyminded]

We only have so much in the way of resources and have to pick our quarrels and it make sense to pick the ones that are most in our interests. That's just a fact of life in the big bad world because looking after our interests is what allows you and I to live the way we do.

Yes, but Gosthacked is arguing, quite reasonably, that the supposed "humanitarian" motives of the Libya campaign are highly questionable. The United States--according to two separate diplomats--gave Bahrain the go-ahead to crush a pro-democracy uprising; and further, gave the go-ahead to Saudi Arabia to cross the border into Bahrain to assist in crushing the pro-democracy uprising.

This was done to curry favour with the tyrannies, so that they would support the Libyan exercise.

Leaving aside the very interesting situation in which the superpower "allows" other countries to oppress or not to oppress its people, does supporting the violent suppression of a pro-democracy movement not cast some doubt on "humanitarian" motives?

And are the other involved countries, including Canada, not implicitly (at least) supportive of the joint Bahrain/Saudi violent suppression, as the US is?

Yet you are quite happy to let Qaddafi have his way.

That's not really fair to Gosthacked...unless you concede that you "are quite happy to let [bahrain and Saudi Arabia] have [their] way."

Edited May 18, 2011 by bloodyminded

[bush_cheney2004]

....Leaving aside the very interesting situation in which the superpower "allows" other countries to oppress or not to oppress its people, does supporting the violent suppression of a pro-democracy movement not cast some doubt on "humanitarian" motives?

Not according to the UN resolution, which makes no mention of Bahrain. If the "superpower" does indeed "allow" such things in the absence of contrary policy and competing power, then it alone will determine the course of action by default, regardless of humanitarian motivations. Ergo, the "superpower's" interests will always be held in higher regard.

And are the other involved countries, including Canada, not implicitly (at least) supportive of the joint Bahrain/Saudi violent suppression, as the US is?

No more than China or India, who have taken no military action at all in the region. Oh the humanity!

Edited May 18, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[Moonlight Graham]

When you drop bombs, you have to replace them. This is the case here.

On the plus side, this is fantastic for business for the US defense industry! Hurray for the war economy!

[Rick]

Does that mean that the UN/NATO can bomb the same infrastructure? Does targeting Gadaffi's home while calling it a compound (killing one of his sons and a couple of his grandkids) mean that we are better than him?

I find it ironic that the ICC calls for Qadaffi's arrest while not calling the arrest of the aggressors in this new war. Libya was not a threat ... The ones who drummed up the inevitable invasion are idiots like Sarkozy, Obama and Cameron. Sure, throw Harper in there as well. War criminals are those who start wars. Gadaffi did not start this one. Just shows who the ICC really is and what they support. The ICC supports 'western' interests.

So you think it's a good idea to litter the place with depleted uranium rounds from A-10s like in Iraq? The whole reason Gadaffi is getting the heat is because he would not play the West's game. Again, I must ask .. why Libya and not Syria, or Bahrain or Yemen ..... What makes Libya different from all these other countries who have gone through or are currently going through the same things?

It's not about humanitarian aid people. It is about western 'interests' in Libya. Natural Resources, and a strategic foothold in Africa. Think about it.

Amen

[GostHacked]

We only have so much in the way of resources and have to pick our quarrels and it make sense to pick the ones that are most in our interests.

Bullshit. While you are at it define those 'interests' for me. Because we know very well that this is not a humanitarian mission. Do you support invading countries just for their resources? Is that what our 'interests' are?

That's just a fact of life in the big bad world because looking after our interests is what allows you and I to live the way we do.

So we can live the way we do? So we are bombing another country just so we can live the way we do? We piss off a whole country just so we can live the way we do? That seems very selfish to me.

Again, looking after our interests is a necessary fact of life. Oil is vital to the western economy, another fact of life. Sticking our heads in the sand is not an option.

Libya supplies 2% of the world's oil. None of it gets to North America. It goes mainly to Europe and Africa. You can argue it is some of the best oil around, because it needs very little refining.

We are going in under "humanitarian aid" to keep them from getting massacred. We have not recognized them as a legitimate government of Libya.

UN and NATO have killed more civilians than Gadaffi has at this point. I think we've also killed more of our own than Gadaffi has in this new war. And it is a war. No matter how you cut it, or how you term it, it is a war. And we are the aggressors.

Yet you are quite happy to let Qaddafi have his way. Killing Moe would be the most humanitarian thing we could do for that country.

Too bad that was not part of the initial UN resolutions. More UN resolutions to come, UN/NATO boots will be on the ground in Libya before the fall.Not only that you are missing one point. I've kept saying I am no fan of Gadaffi, however, if we are going in just for our interests, (aka natural resources and strategic military positioning) then explain to me how is that humanitarian?

If we can use Afghanistan and Iraq as examples. The UN/NATO will be there permenantly. You can expect to see some NATO countries plopping down permanent military bases down in Libya.

[Saipan]

We should just stay the fuck out of this.

We were criticized for year for staying out of it. "It" was called Rwanda.

And for being too slow going to East Timor.

The west is creating the problem to provide the solution.

Really? They told Africans to hack each other's hands off?

This is why the UN/NATO are going in under 'humanitarian aid'.

If that was so Tibet would long be free.

Do we really want another Afghanistan? Do we really want another Iraq?

No. We should just bomb the shit out of them like Clinton and Chretein did, without sending any troops there.

[GostHacked]

No. We should just bomb the shit out of them like Clinton and Chretein did, without sending any troops there.

So bombing the shit out of Libya is providing humanitarian aid to Libyans? Go ahead and explain that one. If you can.

[Wilber]

Bullshit. While you are at it define those 'interests' for me. Because we know very well that this is not a humanitarian mission. Do you support invading countries just for their resources? Is that what our 'interests' are?

It's a variety of things. It's in the West's interest, it is for humanitarian reasons and it helps get rid of a real bad ass. The people who are trying to get rid of this creep aren't telling us to leave.

So we can live the way we do? So we are bombing another country just so we can live the way we do? We piss off a whole country just so we can live the way we do? That seems very selfish to me.

We aren't pissing off a whole country, just those who would keep a despot in power.

Libya supplies 2% of the world's oil. None of it gets to North America. It goes mainly to Europe and Africa. You can argue it is some of the best oil around, because it needs very little refining.

And?

UN and NATO have killed more civilians than Gadaffi has at this point

I think we've also killed more of our own than Gadaffi has in this new war. And it is a war. No matter how you cut it, or how you term it, it is a war. And we are the aggressors.

Bullshit

Too bad that was not part of the initial UN resolutions. More UN resolutions to come, UN/NATO boots will be on the ground in Libya before the fall.Not only that you are missing one point. I've kept saying I am no fan of Gadaffi, however, if we are going in just for our interests, (aka natural resources and strategic military positioning) then explain to me how is that humanitarian?

If we can use Afghanistan and Iraq as examples. The UN/NATO will be there permenantly. You can expect to see some NATO countries plopping down permanent military bases down in Libya.

I don't agree, this is about one person, get rid of him and they can start over.

[Wilber]

Yes, but Gosthacked is arguing, quite reasonably, that the supposed "humanitarian" motives of the Libya campaign are highly questionable. The United States--according to two separate diplomats--gave Bahrain the go-ahead to crush a pro-democracy uprising; and further, gave the go-ahead to Saudi Arabia to cross the border into Bahrain to assist in crushing the pro-democracy uprising.

This was done to curry favour with the tyrannies, so that they would support the Libyan exercise.

Leaving aside the very interesting situation in which the superpower "allows" other countries to oppress or not to oppress its people, does supporting the violent suppression of a pro-democracy movement not cast some doubt on "humanitarian" motives?

And are the other involved countries, including Canada, not implicitly (at least) supportive of the joint Bahrain/Saudi violent suppression, as the US is?

Gosthacked is sitting there whining about what he sees as injustice. Others have to deal with reality and what is possible, not what they would like in a perfect world.

That's not really fair to Gosthacked...unless you concede that you "are quite happy to let [bahrain and Saudi Arabia] have [their] way."

No, but I realize there are limits to what we can do. Helping get rid of Qaddafi is something we can do without creating chaos in the whole region, resulting in drastic consequences for the developed world, yours, mine and Gosthacked's world. Unfortunately, military intervention with Saudi Arabia and Bahrain in this instance is not.

[bloodyminded]

Not according to the UN resolution, which makes no mention of Bahrain. If the "superpower" does indeed "allow" such things in the absence of contrary policy and competing power, then it alone will determine the course of action by default, regardless of humanitarian motivations. Ergo, the "superpower's" interests will always be held in higher regard.

Obviously. When have I argued otherwise?

[bloodyminded]

We were criticized for year for staying out of it. "It" was called Rwanda.

And for being too slow going to East Timor.

We weren't too slow going to East Timor. We were on the side of the killers and torturers.

[bloodyminded]

No, but I realize there are limits to what we can do. Helping get rid of Qaddafi is something we can do without creating chaos in the whole region, resulting in drastic consequences for the developed world, yours, mine and Gosthacked's world. Unfortunately, military intervention with Saudi Arabia and Bahrain in this instance is not.

I'm not talking about avoiding military intervention; I'm talking about supporting repression.

How come every time one or more of the Western allies supports bad behaviour, the Defenders of the Faith always sniff "we can't get involved with everything!"

We are involved. In oppression; in supporting the anti-democratic forces, against the democratic elements. That's my point.

Edited May 19, 2011 by bloodyminded

[cybercoma]

It's a variety of things. It's in the West's interest, it is for humanitarian reasons and it helps get rid of a real bad ass. The people who are trying to get rid of this creep aren't telling us to leave.

It's a foreign, internal conflict. There must be a reason we're supporting one side in their civil war. Why did we pick the "rebels" instead of the government? There are thousands of people there that still support Gaddafi, regardless of our distaste for him. This is an internal conflict between the people of Libya and should not be interfered with by outsiders. International support should not be given to either side, other than condemning Gaddafi for attacking unarmed protestors and urging him to peacefully end the conflict. Sending air support and troops to fight alongside the rebels is picking sides in a struggle that does not affect us whatsoever. This is far from the genocides in Rwanada. We don't need to be sending our troops over there, spending billions of dollars on equipment and blowing up taxpayers' dollars in the form of smart bombs. The return on that investment would have the Dragon's opting out and laughing the entrepreneur out of their shady warehouse.

[GostHacked]

Gosthacked is sitting there whining about what he sees as injustice. Others have to deal with reality and what is possible, not what they would like in a perfect world.

So tell me, what is the reality?

No, but I realize there are limits to what we can do. Helping get rid of Qaddafi is something we can do without creating chaos in the whole region, resulting in drastic consequences for the developed world, yours, mine and Gosthacked's world. Unfortunately, military intervention with Saudi Arabia and Bahrain in this instance is not.

Chaos has been created in the region. Are you forgetting about Tunisia and Egypt who are still going through the chaos? It just does not seem to be reported as often.

What is going on there may not be a civil war at all. I will argue the revolts are western started. Remember there were British SAS soldiers on the groun painting targets and getting a feel for things weeks/months before the chaos started in Libya. I can only conclude that we have caused the uprising to offer a solution. Our governments have done that kind of thing, and are doing it now.

[bloodyminded]

So tell me, what is the reality?

The reality is that "whining" means you're too harsh about Western nations' behaviour; whereas complaints about the behaviour of Official Enemies is sober discourse and concern for human lives. Get with the program.

[bush_cheney2004]

The reality is that "whining" means you're too harsh about Western nations' behaviour; whereas complaints about the behaviour of Official Enemies is sober discourse and concern for human lives. Get with the program.

Moreover, such "whiners" live and thrive in the very same western nations and geo-political framework. Talk is cheap.

[bloodyminded]

Moreover, such "whiners" live and thrive in the very same western nations and geo-political framework. Talk is cheap.

If so, this applies 100% across the board to all political opinions.