Canada won't commit more troops to Libya during election: Harper

Heavens no! You wouldn't want to be honest with people during the election.

I disagree. He's right, you don't want to be playing politics on this.

I was under the impression we had another half a dozen fighters on standby to join the seven already in theatre.

If we are going to do the job, might as well do it right. I'm sure the British and French have the forces available to step things up another notch. Their fighter forces haven't atrophied as much as ours have.

Well let's not get dragged into another situation where we do the heavy lifting and the Europeans twiddle their thumbs. This is in their backyard, let them take care of it, and we can throw a bit of support their way. But troops to me sounds like ground personnel, and I'm totally against that.

Also, where the fuck is the Arab League? They've got planes, why are we doing their dirty work for them>

Bravo Andy...my feelings exactly!!

Thanks. I reluctantly supported the idea of throwing a few bombs at Ghadafi's troops. But getting invested in the outcome, where we have to win at all costs, and we're going to start nation building, that's just insane. Has Astan taught us nothing?

Difference between Afghanistan and here is that we would be supporting the insurgency against a corrupt and very unpopular government, not where the default regime is the basis of insurgency.

Gaddafi may be able to hire mercenaries and terrorist cells to do his dirty work now, but once he is ousted, his financial backing is cut off. Without money, he would lose all his hired guns. It likely would look closer to what East European nations did after the fall of the soviet-backed governments than what is going on in Afghanistan. Still not a pretty sight, but a better solution to the status quo.

Granted, from the rubble of the fallen government, we may have a situation similar to what happened in Afghanistan in the 1990s. But a common mistake is that the insurgency the American's supported in the 80s formed the Taliban in the 90s. Not true.

The insurgency the American's supported in the 80s went on to form the northern alliance, which for a time was diplomatically isolated and independent from the rest of Afghanistan in a similar fashion to how Taiwan is isolated and independent from China. Difference is that Taiwan is generally recognized as being independent, the Northern Alliance wasn't. Since day 1 of the Afghan war the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan has supported the American SOF troops in repayment of a form of blood debt for being trained to fight the Russians back in the 80s. This has continued to this day with full fledged support of the Northern Alliance to NATO's mission in Afghanistan, and the Afghan National Army and to a lesser extent the ANP. It's why the north seems to be so pacified compared to the south.

Thanks. I reluctantly supported the idea of throwing a few bombs at Ghadafi's troops. But getting invested in the outcome, where we have to win at all costs, and we're going to start nation building, that's just insane. Has Astan taught us nothing?
Bravo Andy. The world would be better off with The Colonel not breathing, but there are so many tribes there that hate each other guts that can't even agree on the time of day let alone building a nation. It would be a nightmare to rebuild that nation and in the end they would end up spitting in our face anyway.

You also have a good point about the arab league. Why aren't they in there at pitching in? They are sitting on the side lines waiting to see whoever wins and join that group.

Not often I want to throw reps your way but your bang on here! This is a Eurpean/Arab issue that Canada should have a role in, but a minor role and no more. I get that the CPC see this as a relatively painless (but expensive) way to thrust Canada into the forefront political forefront, but it is just plain wrong to expand.

It's not a huge representation, but Jordan, Qatar, and the UAE have all committed military assets. UAE has twice as many fighters flying over Libya right now than we do. While we have the 4th largest overall military presence, it says a lot for a country 1/4 our population size to field twice as many fighters to the conflict.

Rep-worthy...

See, this is what I mean about rep points. It just means I've said something a lot of people on this forum agree with me. Why? Because this is pretty mainstream opinion I've expressed. I haven't contributed any new ideas, haven't challenged any preconceived notions, so that's supposed to make me rep worthy? I mean it's nice to sometimes be in agreement with people, but if we're all just going after rep points we're not learning much, having our biases challenged or making for a very interesting forum. Dunno who thought the rep points idea up, but I think it sucks. But each to his own.

I'm just has happy when someone gives me a thumbs up. As I am with the opposite so I actually have something to argue about.

To each their own I guess...

Cuz then they'll have the evil West to blame if/when some civvies accidentally get killed.