Libya, a current CF member's opinion

94 posts / 0 new
Last post
CDN_FORCES
Libya, a current CF member's opinion

Hello. I've been lurking here a long time (since 2005 when I was stationed at Camp Mirage). Look, I know what many here think about the military. That's fine; freedom of expression is something I support, but I hope it will be kept civil (no pun intended). What "we" did in Libya (getting rid of a man who was using .50 cal and bombs on civilians) was on the whole a good thing. FYI, I was personally involved. Maybe, if things stay on the rails, I'll speak a bit more about what I do.

Fidel

Russian Military Says Libyan Airstrikes Did Not Take Place March

No Evidence of Gadaffi Violence April

"Bombing His Own People?". Really? Evidence and Over-Active Imaginations on the Part of Gladio Gangsters

The Liar wrote:
 I ordered the German Air Force to conduct humanitarian warfare - that is, to attack only fighting troops. The Polish Government and army leadership ordered the civilian population to carry on the war as francs-tireurs from ambush. It is very difficult under these circumstances to hold one's self back. I want to stress that the democratic States should not imagine it must be that way. If they want it otherwise, they can have it otherwise. My patience can have limits here also. . . . - Adolf Hitler on waging humanitarian warfare after Himmler's SS orchestrated a series of fake terrorist attacks at Gleiwitz

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Oh dear. They do not pay us enough for this job, Rebecca.

Fidel

Camp Mirage? Was he ever really there? Could someone check on the Mirage claim?

Slumberjack

CDN_FORCES wrote:
That's fine; freedom of expression is something I support, but I hope it will be kept civil (no pun intended). What "we" did in Libya (getting rid of a man who was using .50 cal and bombs on civilians) was on the whole a good thing. FYI, I was personally involved. Maybe, if things stay on the rails, I'll speak a bit more about what I do.

I wouldn't count on civility.  To the mods though....does the board really need to be subjected to this shit.

NDPP

you mean Canada's Dubai base once commanded by another murderous Canadian military psycopath Russell Williams?

Merowe

Actually, I'd welcome input from CDN_forces, understanding that his perspective will probably be far from my own. We hear enough from the rightwing propaganda machine - how about the subjective impressions of one of it's cogs? Forces has troubled to post a civil and sincere invitation to discuss the matter. Is there nothing we can learn from this person? Must we be so ungracious? Particularly if we're pushing the argument that its the political leadership who is responsible and not those whose boots are on the ground?

Also, if we're going to shit on everyone who's not obviously on the team, we're going to be a pretty closed shop. Ideologically flawless, of course but kinda bored and lonely. And finally, that they've bothered to post here means they're interested. A good opportunity to bring a little light into someone's world and instead we bury them with kneejerk hostility?

Wouldn't it be better to draw them out a bit, learn what we can? You know, interact?

I wouldn't talk this way if Forces was a G20 cop, or Bouchard. But an off-the-rack soldier, fresh from the slaughter...well, I'm full of questions about what actually happened. The MSM was completely useless, who better to fill in the blanks!

So, CDN_FORCES, if you'll ignore my ill-mannered companions, can you tell us a bit about what you were involved in? Did Canada do anything beyond aerial bombing missions? Where were we in the c-and-c chain, how critical was our effort? How much intelligence, how well-informed did you think the upper ranks were? Did any of your colleagues have a personal interest in North African politics? Was there ANY cultural interaction, or was it limited to dropping bombs on people we'll never meet?

I would expect you to present whatever the standard party line of the armed forces was re: the Libyan mission. Have you any doubts or questions about the nature of our involvement there? What do you know of Moammar Gaddafi, and what did you know before the mission?

Oh yes. Many questions. If the others haven't driven you off, I'd really appreciate your observations.

Unionist

Excuse me, Merowe - but why is the opinion of some soldier of any more interest to you (or us) than that of the workers who provided the weapons, uniforms, food, supplies, transportation, that went into this war? Would you like to hear from them? Or how about the taxpayers who financed it?

Why do you have a special interest in the character who was personally involved (as he says) in "getting rid" of Gaddafi (as he says)?

The rights and wrongs of such a war are a matter of public interest. To focus on the guy who killed people, and is proud of it, seems a bit morbid to me. At best, it may make for an interesting study in human pathology. But what is it doing on a progressive (or any) discussion board whose focus is political rather than psychological?

Having said that, I note that the thread has been opened in "babble banter" - in which case, I'm fine with it! Carry on.

Hey, here's some good banter: Did you hear the one about the guy who went off to war and never came back?? LOL!

 

NDPP

I also see no reason why this person shouldn't banter away either - tell us about JTF2 involvement in Libya too please cog...

Tommy_Paine

Merowe, I think we already are a pretty closed shop. :)

But I would echo Merowe's sentiments.

Let's not be naive.  If we are serious about a lot of the domestic objectives we hold in common, things like better treatment of native people, a government that is less corrupt and more responsive to citizens, a society not controlled by the financial sector, etc;, then those changes-- which are huge, will not come to realization without bloodshed.  And make no mistake: the blood shed will be ours.

We are starting to demand of the people who have accumulated power to share it.  And before they decide or are forced to do so, they will WILL put the armed forces in the streets against us. 

We've seen that time  and again. Most recently at Oka.

And the turning point on these events is when the military decides to do thier real job and enforce the constitution and not the interests of the established powers.

 

And to accomplish this, we need dialogue and understanding between ordinary people and the members of Canada's armed forces.

Of course any one can claim to be a member.  As anyone can make any claim here.  But give people credit for figuring things out as we usually do-- or don't.

Slumberjack

Merowe wrote:
And finally, that they've bothered to post here means they're interested. A good opportunity to bring a little light into someone's world and instead we bury them with kneejerk hostility?

Well here I have to protest.  The hostility is quite considered actually.

pogge

CDN_FORCES wrote:

What "we" did in Libya (getting rid of a man who was using .50 cal and bombs on civilians) was on the whole a good thing.

 

[url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/26/libya-war-saving-liv... the Libyan war was about saving lives, it was a catastrophic failure[/url]

Quote:
What is now known, however, is that while the death toll in Libya when Nato intervened was perhaps around 1,000-2,000 (judging by UN estimates), eight months later it is probably more than ten times that figure. Estimates of the numbers of dead over the last eight months – as Nato leaders vetoed ceasefires and negotiations – range from 10,000 up to 50,000. The National Transitional Council puts the losses at 30,000 dead and 50,000 wounded.

What we did in Libya was to encourage hostilities to continue because we had already decided who we wanted the winners to be -- a rebel movement that was coopted by senior members of the Gaddafi regime who defected because they saw an opportunity. If our priority had been the protection of civilians we would have enforced an immedate ceasefire on both sides so Libyans themselves could look for a peaceful solution. But that's not what we did and we have blood on our hands because of it.

Tommy_Paine

The fact that many Armed Services people have returned from missiions like Afghanistan or peace keeping in Bonsnia traumatized speaks volumes.  We can argue, and we will, about the merits of those missions, and over the broader idea of might can be used in the service of right.

But putting that aside those people-- people like us-- went to make a difference and were doing what they thought made a difference to people in dire need in those places.  Again, the merits of that are part of valid debate. 

But what isn't up for debate is that there are members of the C.A.F. who are decent, who are not entirely foreign to our way of thinking, even if we think they may be mislead or under some missaprehensions of facts.

Dismissing them out of hand, tarring all with the same brush is exactly the knee jerk reactionaryism we find so distastefull on the right.

And yes, Russell Williams was a member of the CAF.  The Green River serial killer was an industrial worker like me.  In fact, the products I helped make at my plant went to his plant and he surely touched what I touched. 

Want to ostracize me and other industrial workers for having such chance associations?

C'mon, we're better than this nonesense.

CDN_FORCES

Thanks Merowe. Like I said at the top I've been lurking a long time so I know who all the players are, and I know who has left or been banished from the island.

 

So. I'm in a senior position in the Canadian military and served four tours overseas in Afghanistan and elsewhere. I didn't mean to imply that I was personally involved in getting Moammar, but I did serve on Operation Mobile, which was the Canadian portion of Operation Unified Protector. I was based in Italy but carried out operations over Libya and its airspace. I'll post some unclas pictures on Flicr for you. I wasn't dropping bombs, but did play a role in where the ordance would be targeted.Overall the level of care taken to avoid collateral damages was outstanding. Certainly over 95% of the missions that delivered GBU-10/12 had 0% chance of hitting civilians owing to the robust sigint/humint and visual identification protocals. Contrary to what some here believe, the anti-regime forces were instrumental in achieving victory. Without boots on the ground there's no way to force someone with total power from giving up.

 

 

Slumberjack

The general consensus is that proud as pudding imperialism apparently has the green light to live and breathe here, and to offer its explanations, just as it does everywhere else.  Knock yourselves out.  No really.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Thanks for dropping by and giving us your perspective, CF, knowing what you know about the response you're likely to get here from some. As I'm sure you know, we're sure to run in to some unbridgeable ideological divides between a CF man and many anti-war, anti-imperialist babblers. If you're game, I'm sure they will be too.

MegB

Catchfire wrote:

Oh dear. They do not pay us enough for this job, Rebecca.

By golly, ain't that the truth.

Unionist

Tommy_Paine wrote:

Dismissing them out of hand, tarring all with the same brush is exactly the knee jerk reactionaryism we find so distastefull on the right.

Who did that, Tommy - other than your straw-man factory? Someone comes on here, says quite proudly he was involved in the thousands of bombing missions against Libya and the countless casualties that caused, and says that it's a "good thing" that "we" got rid of Gaddafi. Are you suggesting this sentiment is shared by all members of the forces? Because if it is, they shouldn't complain about the same brush being used to tar them.

In fact, in real life, there are many who find ways not to serve in the overseas adventures - who quit, or fall "ill" - not enough yet who desert, but that happens as well. And there are those who participate, but do so with doubts and misunderstanding, and an openness to discussion and thought.

That's not the case for the opening post here. NATO, the U.N., and the Harper government spent months claiming that regime change was NOT the goal of the bombing - nor was helping one political faction over another - rather, it was the protection of civilians. Yet the opening poster beats his chest about how we got rid of Gaddafi - and moreover, he comes quite deliberately onto this board, introducing himself by alleging that we don't like the military, but he's going to carry on anyway, and expects us to be civil.

Quite frankly, it would be hard for me to imagine a more scummy introduction by a newbie here. I know members of the forces, and not one of them is this arrogant and cynical. So he can expect to get a far more hostile and vicious brush from this here keyboard than the majority of our troops, who are just unfortunate cannon fodder, rather than arrogant war criminals.

 

Tommy_Paine

Oh Wrongnionist, you do go on.

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

Perhaps we should look to the progress the OccupyTO group made by having a discussion with the police despite their well known differences.

Unionist

Rebecca West wrote:

Catchfire wrote:

Oh dear. They do not pay us enough for this job, Rebecca.

By golly, ain't that the truth.

I guess mods have 3 kinds of ways to pipe up in a thread like this:

1. Express on-topic opinions or contributions of fact, news, etc.

2. Ensure orderly discussion and respect for the rules.

3. The ones quoted above.

 

Fidel

CDN_FORCES wrote:
Contrary to what some here believe, the anti-regime forces were instrumental in achieving victory. Without boots on the ground there's no way to force someone with total power from giving up.

So what do you think about al-Qa'eda flags hoisted over Benghazi today? What kind of revolution is it when Libyans are harassed and murdered and imprisoned for being suspected Gadaffi supporters?

How do you feel about Britain and the U.S. having propped-up militant Islam in Asia, Africa and Middle East since the 1950s? 

mmphosis

CDN_FORCES wrote:

Hello. I've been lurking here a long time (since 2005 when I was stationed at Camp Mirage).

Are you paid to spy on Canadians?

CDN_FORCES wrote:

Look, I know what many here think about the military.

The military provides you with mind reading machines?

CDN_FORCES wrote:

That's fine; freedom of expression is something I support, but I hope it will be kept civil (no pun intended).

You are part of the military propaganda machine, embedded journalism, and all of the mechanisms that attempt to suppress freedom of expression.  "The first casualty when war comes is truth."

And, to really keep civil, I would advise that you quit your job.

CDN_FORCES wrote:

What "we" did in Libya (getting rid of a man who was using .50 cal and bombs on civilians) was on the whole a good thing.

Murder without a trial is not a "good thing."

CDN_FORCES wrote:

FYI, I was personally involved.

Everything is personal.

CDN_FORCES wrote:

Maybe, if things stay on the rails, I'll speak a bit more about what I do.

You are on the rails and you are paid to lie.  I would get off because the train is coming.

mmphosis wrote:

Every year a poll is done and the result is always the same: the majority of Canadians do not support these invasions.

Gadhafi was not only ousted, he was murdered. The details are grisly. This was not the humanitarian "mission" that it was supposed to be. Canadian commanders sat by and allowed people fleeing on a boat to drown. Tens of thousands of dead citizens, and as always so many refugees, all in the name of some democracy that probably won't see the light of day. Fighting continues as the spoils of war of the former country are taken by western countries and the NATO backed thugs. Like Iraq, oil was the real mission.

Of course I will support our troops, but I am ashamed of Canada being involved in this.

NDPP

Slumberjack wrote:

The general consensus is that proud as pudding imperialism apparently has the green light to live and breathe here, and to offer its explanations, just as it does everywhere else.  Knock yourselves out.  No really.

NDPP

I mean, after all SJ,  a good proportion of those here already wear the motorcycle jacket of a 'loyal' opposition that approved and cheer-led this war and warmakers...But make no mistake - having taken note of those who have been shown the door here and for what, this is definitely a precedent that will have to affect future zapping decisions. If we permit someone to come on here and argue that we had a good war, then you can hardly suppress a discussion of the 'steering' of the Arab Spring, for instance, in my view

Slumberjack

But shouldn't we consider it dicey business at this point to talk about precedence? You do make an interesting point however; I had given little thought, and it certainly wouldn't be the first time for that, to the existing full patch supporters of the Afrika Corps.

MegB

mmphosis wrote:

CDN_FORCES wrote:

Hello. I've been lurking here a long time (since 2005 when I was stationed at Camp Mirage).

Are you paid to spy on Canadians?

CDN_FORCES wrote:

Look, I know what many here think about the military.

The military provides you with mind reading machines?

CDN_FORCES wrote:

That's fine; freedom of expression is something I support, but I hope it will be kept civil (no pun intended).

You are part of the military propaganda machine, embedded journalism, and all of the mechanisms that attempt to suppress freedom of expression.  "The first casualty when war comes is truth."

And, to really keep civil, I would advise that you quit your job.

CDN_FORCES wrote:

What "we" did in Libya (getting rid of a man who was using .50 cal and bombs on civilians) was on the whole a good thing.

Murder without a trial is not a "good thing."

CDN_FORCES wrote:

FYI, I was personally involved.

Everything is personal.

CDN_FORCES wrote:

Maybe, if things stay on the rails, I'll speak a bit more about what I do.

You are on the rails and you are paid to lie.  I would get off because the train is coming.

mmphosis wrote:

Every year a poll is done and the result is always the same: the majority of Canadians do not support these invasions.

Gadhafi was not only ousted, he was murdered. The details are grisly. This was not the humanitarian "mission" that it was supposed to be. Canadian commanders sat by and allowed people fleeing on a boat to drown. Tens of thousands of dead citizens, and as always so many refugees, all in the name of some democracy that probably won't see the light of day. Fighting continues as the spoils of war of the former country are taken by western countries and the NATO backed thugs. Like Iraq, oil was the real mission.

Of course I will support our troops, but I am ashamed of Canada being involved in this.

Mmphosis, your post is filled with personal attacks.  Stick with the issues at hand and attack the ideas, not the individual.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Yes, you ingrate. Show some respect for this high-ranking military officer who risked his life for freedom and democracy by sitting in an office in Italy while carrying out [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/babble-banter/libya-current-cf-members-opinion#c..."operations over Libya and its airspace"[/url] and helping Charles ("The Butcher") Bouchard decide "where the ordnance would be targeted".

CDN_FORCES

Rebecca, thanks.

M.Spector

I was based in Italy and flew missions over Libya. All the Canadian aircraft except the Sea King were based there.

Facts. The days of mass bombardment are long gone and every single bomb dropped by RCAF aircraft was either laser-guided or GPS guided. The targets had to be confirmed (by the pilot or a spotter) as anti-regime otherwise there was no authorization to release the weapon (LGen Bouchard held the red card, which means it was ultimately his responsibility). Around 600 RCAF bombs were dropped on various weapons depots, tanks, command centers and technicals. I'm not telling you this to make war sound sexy or fun because it isn't. What it is is highly complex and dangerous and shouldn't be entered into unless other options have failed.

 

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

CDN_FORCES wrote:

I was based in Italy and flew missions over Libya.

OK, so you were a spy.

Quote:
The targets had to be confirmed (by the pilot or a spotter) as anti-regime otherwise there was no authorization to release the weapon...

I think you mean "pro-regime". Or did you keep getting confused about which side were the "bad guys"?

Quote:
I'm not telling you this to make war sound sexy or fun because it isn't. What it is is highly complex and dangerous and shouldn't be entered into unless other options have failed.

Except in this case no other "options" were even considered.

And notice the "mission creep". You call it "war" and yet it was supposed to be a UN mission to protect civilians. You talk about confirming which side the targets were on before destroying them, as if only those on the side of Qaddafi were threats to civilians. Thousands of civilians were killed by anti-government forces; would it be violating official secrets if you could tell us if there was one single instance of NATO forces targeting anti-government "depots, tanks, command centers [they've even got you spelling like an American], and technicals" in order to protect civilians?

CDN_FORCES

1. There's no such thing as military spies (that's done by CSIS). There are military G2 Officers (in the Continental Staff System, G2 is Intelligence). I don't do that either.

2. Yes pro-regime, but anti-regime forces were also deliberately targetted. Only a few times but it did happen, mostly as warning since the lines were moving so fast in the final days. They were never targetted once they got inside towns or cities due to the high risk of CD.

3. It's easier to sell "RTP" or "no-fly-zone" to the general public than "war", but despite what the media and politicians called it, that's what it was.

4. Regime change was the unstated goal fom the very start, which any thinking person should have figured out the moment the UN signed on. There's no way NATO and the EU were going to carry out an open-ended aerial patrol of Libya in order to prevent Muommar's forces from attacking the rebel cities. The US did that in Iraq from 1991-2003 and it cost billions. Since there were some EU and US financial concerns, NATO wanted a quick in-and-out and that was only going to happen with Muommar out of the picture. It was either that, or not get involved at all and watch another Rwanda. Considering the flak Clinton took over that debacle there's no way Sarkozy and Obama wanted that on their record. And just keep this honest I happen to agree with their decisions.

 

 

1springgarden

CDN_FORCES, you're saying that Russia and China knew that by abstaining in the UN 'humanitarian no fly zone' vote knew they were authorizing "war" and regime change in Libya by NATO and the Gulf Cooperation Council?  Sorry, I think Russia and China fell for the okey doke.  Putin was pissed that Medvedev authorized abstention and I believe that's why Medvedev has since been sidelined.  Russia won't make the same mistake on any NATO-sponsored 'humanitarian' resolutions on Syria or Iran.

MegB

Unionist wrote:

Rebecca West wrote:

Catchfire wrote:

Oh dear. They do not pay us enough for this job, Rebecca.

By golly, ain't that the truth.

I guess mods have 3 kinds of ways to pipe up in a thread like this:

1. Express on-topic opinions or contributions of fact, news, etc.

2. Ensure orderly discussion and respect for the rules.

3. The ones quoted above.

 

Thank you Unionist for your helpful insights into our jobs.  I'll be sure to bring them up at a staff meeting.  When Hell gets an NHL  franchise.

1springgarden

CDN_FORCES wrote:
NATO wanted a quick in-and-out and that was only going to happen with Muommar out of the picture. It was either that, or not get involved at all and watch another Rwanda. Considering the flak Clinton took over that debacle there's no way Sarkozy and Obama wanted that on their record. And just keep this honest I happen to agree with their decisions.

So basically the insight you're here to share is that R2P was the rationale for the Libya "war" and regime change?  And that the NATO bombs were dropped with the utmost of care so as to minimize harm to civiians?

Er, excuse me if I'm wondering if you work in the public relations end of the CDN_FORCES and are here on an 'astro-turf'-ing assignment.

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

 

Catchfire wrote:

Oh dear. They do not pay us enough for this job, Rebecca.

 

Catchfire wrote:

Thanks for dropping by and giving us your perspective, CF, knowing what you know about the response you're likely to get here from some. As I'm sure you know, we're sure to run in to some unbridgeable ideological divides between a CF man and many anti-war, anti-imperialist babblers. If you're game, I'm sure they will be too.

 

Rebecca wrote:

Mmphosis, your post is filled with personal attacks.  Stick with the issues at hand and attack the ideas, not the individual.

 

Rebecca wrote:

Thank you Unionist for your helpful insights into our jobs.  I'll be sure to bring them up at a staff meeting.  When Hell gets an NHL  franchise.



The Empire Strikes Back.

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

CDN_FORCES wrote:

4. Regime change was the unstated goal fom the very start, which any thinking person should have figured out the moment the UN signed on. There's no way NATO and the EU were going to carry out an open-ended aerial patrol of Libya in order to prevent Muommar's forces from attacking the rebel cities. The US did that in Iraq from 1991-2003 and it cost billions. Since there were some EU and US financial concerns, NATO wanted a quick in-and-out and that was only going to happen with Muommar out of the picture. It was either that, or not get involved at all and watch another Rwanda. Considering the flak Clinton took over that debacle there's no way Sarkozy and Obama wanted that on their record. And just keep this honest I happen to agree with their decisions.

I will not welcome a warmonger into any space I am in but I will thank you for removing the NDP's fig leaf on their support for this mission.  As I've said all along Dowar and the other MP's swallowed what any thinking person knew was obvious.  

I thought that babble was a place for discussion of issues from an anti-imperialist perspective.  What the fuck is this pro military shit?  Don't worry all our bombs are smart and we are sure all the tens of thousands of people killed by them deserved to die. Our boots on the ground spotters are invincible, right?  

I love this guys anti-imperialist take on the Iraq war as well.  I am glad it taught NATO lessons in regime change.  Quick in and out during that initial penetration of a sovereign entity is the real key.  Good to know that long protracted missions are too expensive.  What was the final civilian death count in Iraq from that benevolent intervention.  Afghanistan as well I am glad to have someone tell me all about our brave battle for the women and children.

It is one thing to be an unthinking universal soldier but this guy is an advocate for murder of civilians in the name of ideology. I wonder how many peace activists will be banned and given suspensions for not being accommodating to a proponent for war.

CDN_FORCES

Northern Shoveler ,

1. I never made any comment on the the Iraq War (1 or 2). I commented on the US enforcement of the no-fly-zones over Iraq from 1991-2003 and how much it cost.

2. You won't find any CF personnel who advocate war as a solution, including me, unless all other options have been exhausted. With respect to Libya, diplomacy and sanctions had failed and Muommar's troops were about to wipe out civilians. Let's be clear: the aim of his troops was to murder civilians, by the most violent and ruthless way possible, who were rebelling against his rule in the hope that that would make them back down. What would you have done if you were the Secretary General of the UN?

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

CDN_FORCES wrote:

Let's be clear: the aim of his troops was to murder civilians, by the most violent and ruthless way possible, who were rebelling against his rule in the hope that that would make them back down. What would you have done if you were the Secretary General of the UN?

I would have followed the advice of world leaders like Chavez who wanted a truce and mediation between the two warring sides.

I don't believe all your propaganda and I certainly do not believe that Gaddafi is any more murderous than his neighbours in Yemen, Saudi Arabia or Bahrain. The aim of the Egyptian military is to shoot citizens to remain in power. But since their military command is very integrated with NATO they get to massacre their civilians in the streets.   

You say Benghazi needed protection and I say that the RCAF murdering civilians in their beds in Sirte with your fucking "smart" bombs is just as evil and immoral. You sir are an apologist for murder and regime change by military force.  A paid thug who believes he has the right to slaughter innocent civilians.  

Killing civilians is wrong whether YOU do it or Gaddafi forces did it. A murderer is a murderer is a murderer there is no justification for your actions and your attempts sicken me.

You are the universal soldiers and until YOU change war will continue relentlessly.  You and your comrades in arms are the reason for war because you willing to kill for your masters.  Without you there could be no war.

 

CDN_FORCES

Northern Shoveler

1. You would have "followed the advice of world leaders like Chavez who wanted a truce and mediation between the two warring sides".

Let's work through your plan. That fact that Chavez wanted a truce is fantastic, but he wasn't a player. The players were Muammar and the Libyan people. He offered a truce only after his army had encircled and shelled Bengazi and Misrata in March, killing thousands of civilians. The rebels decided not to accept a truce because they would be slaughtered in the follow-on occupation once the world lost interest. Remember that all this took place before UN resolution 1973. It was clear that a humanitarian disaster was about to unfold.

So I ask you again, what would you have done as Secretary General of the UN? Time is short and hundreds of thousands of lives are at stake.

2. My personal opinion is that some people have made a huge error by supporting Muammar's regime, but it's over and won't be coming back. I think they did so out of some misguided "enemy of my enemy is my friend" theory. I see the same thing with Syria; by any measure Assad is an asshole for what he's doing to the Syrian people, but he's become a hero to some because he's sticking it to the man (the West).

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

So it is now all right on babble to promote this type of blatant in your face imperialist propaganda. You have not said a thing about Bahrain or Saudi Arabia.  ANY THINKING PERSON knows that it is a death sentence to openly oppose the Monarchs in those countries.  The Egyptian military is terrorizing their citizens as we chat and you say nothing.  That is imperialism.  You forgive anything "our bastards" do and vilify any dictator not under the influence of NATO based corporations and institutions.  

As for Syria the government is offering to sit down and talk and the western armed and backed "rebels" are saying bring on the death and destruction and chaos.  When the dust settles it will be them and not the  current leaders in control of a nasty torture regime.  But like in Iraq and Afghanistan it will be a torture regime with NATO approval. 

 

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

CDN_FORCES Apologist for Murderous Civilian Bombings wrote:

Rebecca, thanks.

Facts. The days of mass bombardment are long gone and every single bomb dropped by RCAF aircraft was either laser-guided or GPS guided. The targets had to be confirmed (by the pilot or a spotter) as anti-regime otherwise there was no authorization to release the weapon (LGen Bouchard held the red card, which means it was ultimately his responsibility). Around 600 RCAF bombs were dropped on various weapons depots, tanks, command centers and technicals. I'm not telling you this to make war sound sexy or fun because it isn't. What it is is highly complex and dangerous and shouldn't be entered into unless other options have failed.

the UN Secretary General begging to differ wrote:

On Thursday, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon offered some of his strongest remarks yet on the subject, saying through a spokesperson that he was "deeply concerned by reports of the unacceptably large number of civilian casualties."

"The Secretary-General calls on all parties to exercise extreme caution in their actions, in order to minimize any further loss of civilian life," the statement said.

Ban's remarks came just a few days after another U.N. official strongly condemned a controversial NATO airstrike targeting the headquarters of Libyan State TV, in an attack that Libyan officials say resulted in the deaths of journalists and civilians.

"I deplore the NATO strike on Al-Jamahiriya and its installations," UNESCO Director-General Irina Bokova said on Monday.

"Media outlets should not be targeted in military actions," she said. "U.N. Security Council Resolution 1738 (2006) condemns acts of violence against journalists and media personnel in conflict situations."

There have been growing calls for caution from the NATO-led military mission in Libya, with some observers saying that the allegedly high numbers of civilian casualties are both damaging to the mission and, possibly, in contravention of the original U.N. no-fly zone resolution.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/12/libya-un-civilian-deaths_n_9256...

Highly complex and us civilians should just mindlessly accept your bullshit that you don't kill civilians.  That is a lie and why you are allowed to promote such lies on this board is beyond me. Oh let me guess the UN Secretary was lying not you.

 

CDN_FORCES

Northern Shoveler wrote:

 You have not said a thing about Bahrain or Saudi Arabia.  

That's because this thread I started is about Libya. Why don't you start a thread about those places?

 

 

CDN_FORCES

Northern Shoveler wrote:

the UN Secretary was lying, not you.

 

Canada never bombed Libyan State TV, but since we are part of the NATO alliance we bear our share of responsibility, especially considering LGen Bouchard signed off on the attack. Also, I believe U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon wanted both sides to exercise extreme caution in their actions. That is something Canada did; we never carried out indescriminate bombing or shelling of anything, civilian or military, unlike the Libyan army. You can get upset about what I just wrote but it is the truth and easily verifyable online. Like I said at the start I'm not here to convert anyone, but I do want to point out that the Canadian miltary is not some monstrous entity without a soul, as some would characterize it.

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

LOL

Thank you CDN BOMBER, for showing that my points are right and you have nothing to say because you are obviously a thinking person who knows the world is far more complex than the black versus white good versus bad propaganda that you are spewing.  Go ahead you can admit the obvious. The choosing of who the really bad dictators are is directly tied to their relationship with the US and NATO countries.  Any thinking person knows that is axiomatic.

Gaian

Why MUST you be so logical, so obdurate in explaining the role of RCAF personnel on mission. Sheesh.

But seriously, are there any missions that you might be ordered out on where you would tell your commander to pee up a stump? Can you envisiion them, or think of any in the recent past? Bombing places not so obviously filled with bad guys?

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

CDN_FORCES wrote:

we never carried out indescriminate bombing or shelling of anything, civilian or military, unlike the Libyan army. 

No you were not deliberately indiscriminate but you were wrong many, many, times unless you are telling me that the other airforces in NATO are incompetent compared to the RCAF and all the reported deaths of civilians were done by them.  There are countless INDEPENDENT reports of NATO planes killing civilians and bombing neighbourhoods where there were no military targets.  That is the truth as a I see it.  In criminal law saying I didn't understand the consequences of shooting off guns in a residential neighbourhood is called wilful blindness. 

CDN_FORCES

Gaian wrote:
Why MUST you be so logical, so obdurate in explaining the role of RCAF personnel on mission. Sheesh. But seriously, are there any missions that you might be ordered out on where you would tell your commander to pee up a stump? Can you envisiion them, or think of any in the recent past? Bombing places not so obviously filled with bad guys?

Yes, Libya was just such a mission. There were many occasions when RCAF pilots did not drop their bombs because the target was obscured or there were civilians within the CEP/blast area.

 

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

 

rabble.ca is a public, independent, progressive news and information source. In defining itself as "progressive," rabble.ca embraces a pro-human rights, pro-feminist, anti-racist, queer-positive, anti-imperialist and pro-labour stance, and as such encourages discussions which develop and expand progressive thought.

I am old fashioned in that I try to live up to the spirit of organizations that I sign up for.  Even if I sign on to someplace like babble I try and respect the space that I am entering.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

CDN_FORCES wrote:
Also, I believe U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon wanted both sides to exercise extreme caution in their actions. That is something Canada did; we never carried out indescriminate bombing or shelling of anything, civilian or military, unlike the Libyan army. You can get upset about what I just wrote but it is the truth and easily verifyable online. Like I said at the start I'm not here to convert anyone, but I do want to point out that the Canadian miltary is not some monstrous entity without a soul, as some would characterize it.

I didn't know that a state organization could have a soul. I've always figured that organizations are merely expressions of the will of their constituent ideology--in this case, the ongoing imperialist history of Canada and NATO. Indeed, the idea that a "soul" is simply feeling bad when you knowingly kill civilians (and alleviating that guilt because you knowingly killed as few as possible. Or thereabouts) strikes me as a grotesque travesty.

While the Canadian Forces may slap each others' backs for not bombing "indiscriminately" (without damning by faint praise, of course), you might ask why you didn't apply the same limitations to the foreign policy which "indiscriminately" buys in to these false and treacherous colonialist narratives.

Gaian

Yes. I should have been more specific. "In the recent past" like Iraq, had Canada joined with dubious Dubya in going in on the strength of the WMD myth. And when it became known that your country's political leadership lied through their teeth, were nakedly wrong. That is what you are saying separates you from, say, American pilots who continue to obliterate good guys, not having the justification of a "good war" (like WW II, ie.) Can you conceive of a situation where you would grit your moral teeth and fall back onf "orders is orders?"

500_Apples

It's not surprising to see the moderators side be so callously against babblers.

I saw the writing on the wall when Catchfire said it was "racist" to discuss the CIA's role in third world political developments, and shut down a discussion. Pinochet never happened according to Catchfire.

The problem is that they both think they're the smartest people on the board when in fact they are clearly not. They will not bring this up at the babble board meeting. There is nothing to do. Babble is dying as more and more intelligent posters get driven away, and that is the end.

CDN_FORCES

Ctchfire,

 

1. An organization is simply an amalgam of the people who inhabit it. If the organization is charged with doing evil it will attract awful people (think Einsatzgruppen).  That's not the type of person employed by the Canadian Armed Forces (and we could have a side discussion about the exceedingly few who have done deliberately horrible things like Russ Williams). And any Canadian soldier who has killed feels bad after, which is why there's PTSD. We don't go the USMC route of dehumanization. Those who kill and don't feel anything are the true monsters.

2. There is a real difference between indescriminate bombing and the other kind. Indescriminate is area bombardment where you don't see what your shells or bombs are going to hit; it could be a barracks, or hospital or empty field. It's what happened in WWII in London and Berlin and Nagasaki, and by the Libyan army in Benghazi and Misrata, and by the rebels in Sirte. Deliberate bombing is when you see the target, identify it, and then confirm it's legitimate (according to the rules of engagement). That's what the CF did.

3. Foreign policy is great to discuss, but it's something I don't have any control over except at election time, and even then an anti-war party could easily become pro-war (think NDP).

Thanks for your articulate comment.

Pages