Is it just me or is anyone else concerned about what we are doing in Libya… are people aware that we are now at war with Libya?
No, we’re not. When Canadians liberated Holland we weren’t at war with Holland, we were at war with the illegitmate occupants. We’re putting the future of Libya in the hands of the people, taking it away from the illegitmate dictator.
Do you think Gaddafi should be allowed to continue killing his own people?
we are bombing a sovereign nation right now as we speak. As much as I don’t agree with how those people are being treated, it is a civil war and a matter of state. We did not intervene in Rwanda, but then, Rwanda does not have any oil. Libya has oil or we would not be there. If the US and the rest of the world spent half as much developing new energy sources as they do warring for oil they wouldn’t need oil so much.
After all it is a UN mandated operation to enforce a no-fly zone, but I agree NATO and others should let those on the ground sort themselves out.
[quote=“eccentric”]No, we’re not. When Canadians liberated Holland we weren’t at war with Holland, we were at war with the illegitmate occupants. We’re putting the future of Libya in the hands of the people, taking it away from the illegitmate dictator.
Do you think Gaddafi should be allowed to continue killing his own people?[/quote]
When Canada liberated Holland we were at war with the illegitimate occupants.
If Holland weren’t “on the way” to Germany, it wouldn’t have been liberated, but bypassed. It was liberated because it was convenient to do so.
There’s little difference. Canada took both actions (Libya and Holland) because of Canadian interests, not the interests of the local people. It’s just a happy coincidence when our interests coincide with the interests of the local civilians.
There is a big difference.
We ‘liberated’ Holland from Nazi occupiers.
We’re interfering in the affairs of a sovereign country by picking sides and assisting one. Based on the neo-con concept that it’s legitimate to force “regime change”, something that goes against our entire history and was only invented by the Bushites a decade ago.
We are NOT peacekeeping: putting our troops between them to stop the violence.
We are bombing one side and not the other. For the simple reason everyone hates Gaddafi and we can get away with it. Just like everyone hated Saddam so the Yanks COULD.
Are we protecting people in Yemen, Syria, Bahrain, Tunisia? No, those are OUR assholes slaughtering their people. Are we in the Ivory Coast? No, those a broke ass little shitholes no one cares if civilians are getting slaughtered. Hold a fucking concert or something…
I sincerely wish we were in Libya helping people achieve security and democracy. I could be proud of that.
But we’re bombing the side we hate and haven’t got a fucking clue who the other side really is or what they want. And we’re doing it without discussion in Parliament, right before an election, solely on the order of the PM that wants to be Sgt, Rock* and have you watch the bombs go off in Tripoli and forget the bombs he dropped in Parliament.
- and that’s the Yank comic book hero. Not Sgt. Alan Rock and Queasy Company!
As far as I know. War, is one of the largest producers of money, EVER…
Because it was convenient, and a necessary part of a larger goal.
We haven’t liberated a lot of other places that were occupied by foreign powers, some much worse than any atrocities in Holland. And Canada didn’t lift a finger because it wasn’t in our interest.
East Timor being a great example. Not only did Canada do nothing (not even diplomatically), but it actively sold weapons to the occupiers. And when students tried to point out that Canada was essentially ignoring and profiting from a genocide, they were pepper sprayed.
I agree that Canada is a peace-keeper only when it’s in our interests. We’re a coalition partner when it’s in our interests (Afghanistan) and we aren’t when it’s not (Iraq).
But it makes for a good narrative on what it means to be Canadian. Highlight all the good things we’ve done, and conveniently ignore the bad things we’ve done, or when we failed to do good things because they weren’t convenient.
This is one of those things that people repeat without really knowing how it’s supposed to work. It’s something that economists call the “broken window fallacy.” It would be like saying that the rash of broken windows in Prince Rupert last year was good for the economy, because the glass company made lots of money!
War is great for those who make weapons, but overall, it is a huge drain on the economy. Dropping a bomb on Libya is like flying over the country and throwing money out the window. Except that if you threw money out the window, at least somebody would have a chance of recovering it
I didn’t say it was the greatest producer of money for a country.
Well, explain how war is the largest producer of money, then.
I’d say war is the largest destroyer of money. Just the opposite of what you said.
It wasn’t convenience. Canadians were on the Northern flank so that was our job.
I’d say Dieppe was convenience. Hey we need to test the defences and we’ve got these expendable colonials hanging around…
Well, explain how war is the largest producer of money, then.
I’d say war is the largest destroyer of money. Just the opposite of what you said.[/quote]
Someone has to produce the arms for the countries that need them. Don’t they?
Never said anything about economic boosts either.
I certainly have a problem with the Libyan conflict.
Ghadafi is nuts and getting rid of him is probably in the best interests of Libya.
But how does it get done and who does it? And what happens after?
When Iraq invaded Kuwait 1989, there was a justification for the world to intercede.
After 9/11 there may have been justification to invade Afghanistan.
In 2003, there was no justification to invade Iraq. Canada rightly stayed out especially when the invasion was not UN sanctioned.
In recent years there have been horrible conflicts - including genocide - where the world has essentially turned its back.
Now we have this conflict. It helps that it is UN sanctioned despite Russia’s and China’s abstentions. But I would hate to see this drag out like Afghanistan and Iraq with little to show in results.
Libyan officials are calling it a modern-day crusade. win or lose this action is creating a whole new generation of terrorist.
I wish I were more an expert on these events.
The Ivory Coast is in the midst of a four month civil war where the winners of the election have not been able to take power because the former ruler will not leave. Massacres, rapes and other atrocities have occurred. What has been the response from the rest of the world?
Gadhafi may be a dictatorial tyrant and perhaps an illegitimate ruler but he has been the ruler for the past 40 years and when he responds to Libyan rebels attempting to oust him, the world quickly takes the side of the rebels.
Wouldn’t it make more sense to help a group who won an election rather than a group who are rebelling against an established though dictatorial government?
Here’s an interesting blog written by an Ph.D. candidate who is traveling with Libyan rebel forces: