56

‘Acts of war’


 

From Paris, the Prime Minister comments on the Libya campaign.

“We should not kid ourselves. Whenever we engage in military action — essentially acts of war — these are difficult situations,” Harper said at the end of an emergency summit, hastily convened in Paris to deal with the crisis. “And we will have to monitor this very closely and be very careful what we do every step of the way.”

Harper said the no-fly zone that Canada, France, Britain and others have agreed to enforce over Libyan skies is a complicated affair that could involve loss of innocent lives. Enforcing a no-fly zone could involve attacking Gadhafi air defence forces, among other things. Minimizing civilian casualties was a serious topic of discussion among his fellow leaders, Harper said. “These campaigns are complicated and one cannot promise perfection. One cannot promise there will not be casualties on our side either. But obviously all precautions will be taken to minimize our own casualties and minimize those of innocent civilians.”

The campaign has begun with French, American and British military strikes.


 

‘Acts of war’

  1. Harper. One. More. Photo-Op.

    And we will have to monitor this very closely and be very careful what we do every step of the way.

    Winston Churchill, he is not, is he? We will have to monitor this very closely and be very careful. Ya think, Steve?

  2. He thinks he's Winston Churchill – there in lies the problem. He says no troops on the ground, but Cannon has said if necessary. Operation Mission Creep.

  3. War is mainly a catalogue of blunders.

    -Winston Churchill

  4. What's behind door number 2. Probably explains Obama's reluctance.

  5. There are undoubtedly Islamic extremists amongst the opposition forces in Libya, but it's a bit of a Catch-22 isn't it? After all, if we sit idly by and watch them get pounded into submission by Qadaffi, do you suppose that THAT would make them hate the West less? Of course not.

    Qadaffi is crazy and evil. I say we do what we can to help the people of Libya depose the crazy evil dictator in charge of their country, and if he ends up being replaced by people who are equally crazy/evil, then we deal with that when the time comes. Supporting the overthrow of dictators in the Middle East isn't some panacea that will make Osama bin Laden love us all, but sitting idly by while dictators attack their own people in a desperate attempt to hold on to power isn't going to convert any extremists either.

  6. Pity he didn't think of that when he was all gung-ho over Iraq and Afghanistan.

  7. Amusing how Wherry gives his Harper-haters a cut and paste for their Saturday meeting.

    Canada just committed 400 forces personel to war.
    And the Prime Minister of Canada prepares us for the possiblity of casualites.

    That's was Prime Ministers do.

  8. Well, we can't possibly have an election now.

  9. Dug up any more in Iffy's family, wilson?

  10. .
    I would like to point out the U.S. first operational response was with cruise missiles, not fighter jets, and against command and control systems.

    Canadians are being propagandized, even by our own Air Force website, that fighter jets are the way to go for the foreseeable future. They are NOT. Let's not stock up on 20th century spears and arrows. The 'Government of Harper's efficiency bean-counter departments haven't a clue about future war-craft.

    I say this not in defense of warcraft, but in opposition to putting meat in cockpits on the pretext that remote and semi-autonomous airframes aren't yet ready for prime-time. They WILL be, and our forces will have to MEET that challenge in 5-8 years, and on the contrary, we will be pumping fuel into defenseless obsolete flying muskets for the next 15 years.

    And let's not elect any more econ grads brainwashed by first year supply/demand curves. They not only don't know the difference between right and wrong, they don't know correct and incorrect.
    .

  11. Agreed completely. I also think Harper's words were well chosen. (although as wilson below might note, I still do hate the guy)

  12. I said it was complicated, didn't I ? We can hope that the bodies in the streets of
    Bahrain and Yemen will learn to love us too. As for whatever Ol' Shark Eyes chooses
    to tell us this week … I stopped listening a long time ago.

  13. Wilson thinks s/he is still in the playground, where made-up names bothered kids. Plus the paranoia is raging.

    Tis not war….tis a UN R2P order. Peace-keeping actually.

    Blue helmets are back in style.

  14. Oh, I didn't mean to suggest you weren't aware of the complications, I just wanted to articulate the other side of the complications laid out on the page you linked to.

    As for the people of Bahrain and Yemen, it is of course terrible what is happening there as well, but sometimes the world unites around a problem, and sometimes they don't. The fact that the world hasn't rallied around the need to do something in Yemen and Bahrain is no reason for us to let what's happening in Libya slide. The world's not fair, but we should do what we can, when we can, imho.

  15. What is it about Wherry copying and pasting the remarks of the PM that you interpret as an attack on the PM?

  16. I would like to point out the U.S. first operational response was with cruise missiles, not fighter jets, and against command and control systems.

    Canadians are being propagandized, even by our own Air Force website, that fighter jets are the way to go for the foreseeable future.

    Doesn't your argument here kinda ignore the fact that the cruise missiles were used to take out the systems capable of shooting at the dozens of allied fighter jets now patrolling the skies over Libya? Or the fact that French fighter jets were firing on Libyan tanks before the cruise missiles were fired?

    I don't disagree with the fact that unmanned drones are probably the future, and fighter jets will be of less and less importance in the future, but I'd also suggest that this is why we're replacing what is currently a fleet of 80 fighters (and used to be a fleet of over 130 fighters) with a fleet of 65 fighters. My thoughts about the procedures used to come to said purchase decision aside, we're clearly reducing our use of fighters going forward, even under the Tory plan.

  17. I say we enforce a no-fly zone. If necessary, we shoot at tanks and artillery and Ghadafi's military.

    What we don't do is arm the rebels, or put our boots on the ground.

    I can't believe after all the examples in history where we have armed the rebels, only to have the rebels become the new enemy, our world leaders are even considering such a course of action. I don't think Harper is onside with that, but nobody's going to listen to Harper.

  18. Canada is a major supplier of arms. We sell to everybody.

    Think Harper objects?

  19. Yup. 400 personnel … in a coalition … that we didn't vote for ….. is
    there no end to the madness ….

  20. LOL.

    No, see, this is the GOOD kind of coalition. ;-)

  21. I see Cameron is having a vote in his Commons. The lessons of Tony Blair must haunt him.

  22. If it's absolutely decided we should what we can to help the people of Libya depost their dictator, shouldn't we do just that? I mean I am undecided about whether it's a good idea or not, but if it IS than shouldn't we be going "all in" as they say?

  23. I seem to recall "there will be mistakes" was also Harper's statement about the stimulus program.

  24. No this is under the Responsibility To Protect doctrine which has precise steps to be followed.

    We are intervening in a sovereign country….not because it is attacking another country….but because it's attacking it's own people

    It's to prevent another Rwanda

    But countries wouldn't have agreed to this doctrine if they all felt they could be invaded at any time because of a quick decision by a few people over minor stuff.

    So there's a set of requirements to be met, a specific kind of vote, and done only a step at a time….warnings, sanctions, bank accounts confiscated etc…getting bigger all the time. Gadaffi didn't take the first few hints and threatened to wipe his people out….'without mercy'…..so now we're at the no-fly zone stage.

  25. Everything Wherry does is an attack on the PM.

  26. LOL. Yeah, I figured that must be it. If Wherry pets a puppy it's all part of the vast conspiracy against the Tories.

    (BTW, puppies? They're in on it too!)

  27. LOL Cameron, who called Harp's G8/G20 a circus?

    Cameron also called S Africa, Nigeria, Qatar…..

  28. I hope the author really means "advice" or "policy advice" and not "military advice".

    I would like to think that if someone asked our Prime Minister for "military advice" (ANY Canadian PM – Harper, Chretien, Mulroney, Trudeau..) that our Prime Minister would tell said person that he or she is sorely unqualified to provide military advice. Military advice comes from generals and troops, not Prime Ministers, and Cameron has his own generals.

  29. Like Ron Burgundy said, oops I mean Lawrence Martin, I really insist he has to change that picture at the G&M.
    It`s all luck, and this will save Harper`s butt again : )

  30. "I don't disagree with the fact that unmanned drones are probably the future…"

    Harper's already onto this concept. He has had several drones in his cabinet since he first formed a government.

  31. Did he call Portugal?
    The winner of the UN Sec C seat that Canada was competing for.

  32. Why should we be coming in on one side of this conflict at all? I oppose Gaddafi, and hope he gets no less than he deserves, but this sort impartiality and bias on the part of the UN and western world is not going to help the post-conflict Libya. When you cite historical precedence to argue against arming the rebels consider the amount of hate Serbs still carry for NATO and the United States even after all these years. Fighting the war for the rebels will not win us any friends, the best course should always be the fair and impartial one.

  33. Yup

  34. What will, Claudia? The 'manning up' and flying to Paris to confab? The F-18s waiting with the Danes in Sicily? Who else's butt will it save, Claudia? Cannon's? Kenney's? Lukiwiski's? Will the inevitable blowback in Bahrain and Yemen (and Jordan, Iraq and Syria and on and on and on…) save his butt? What about that father in the streets of Bahrain that just got shot through the neck by a sniper? Where's his butt right now that it needed saving? We know where his head is. Pasted all over the square.

    Butts will surely be saved, Souls, meh. Hey, it's all luck.

    ":)"

  35. Wow. Sane writing. On the internets, even. But that link to the 'Network' clip was truly…um…how do you say….oh,, got it,….'depressing'.

  36. Hopefully it's as on the mark as his stock market timing advice.

  37. Hahaha, so true..

  38. I was talking about an election and if you read Harperland, according to Martin, the earthquake in Haiti was what saved Harper last time, I was being sarcastic!!

    Personally, I had hoped that they had taken action long ago. Gaddafhi is an insane and evil man, I am very proud of Harper and what he said!

  39. None of this was Harper's idea, so he gets credit for zilch

    And Gaddafi is no worse than any other dictator….we have lots of them. Gadaffi just drew the short straw in this go-round

  40. Yes, you are correct, because Wherry believes that conservatives torture puppies.

  41. Well, that would explain why the puppies are in on the conspiracy…

    LOL

  42. If we were going to bomb Libya we'd have bombed them by now…

    (What? C'mon, that one was too easy. I couldn't let that opportunity pass… LOL)

  43. So now it doesn't have to be plausible to be true? They're always moving the goalposts.

  44. Harper definitely has a cabinet full of "un-manned" drones.
    Perhaps he could appoint the manly Bruce Carson to cabinet – (via the Senate of course)

  45. We'll at least he's acknowledging that wars don't follow even the best laid plans. An often repeated lesson in history that gets ignored with each new advancement in tactics or hardware.
    You'll like this one:
    However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results.
    Sir Winston Churchill

  46. He'll have more cause to acknowledge that today as the Libyan strategy is already falling apart.

    But thank you for the quote, I'll add it to my collection.

  47. >Doesn't your argument here kinda ignore the fact that the cruise missiles were used to take out the systems capable of shooting at the dozens of allied fighter jets now patrolling the skies over Libya?

    Exactly. The future will be missile (drone, predator, glide bomb, hypersonic, etc). They will not be there to degrade anti-aircraft defenses, but anti-missile defenses). I'm aware also that Obama has not committed fighter jets to the fray as yet. Sarkozy was gung-ho on that, but they don't have U.S. special capabilities.

    >Or the fact that French fighter jets were firing on Libyan tanks before the cruise missiles were fired?

    Yup. Spears and blow-guns. That's all the French had ready as a first operation.

    >65 fighters.

    Make it 15 new fighters, and the current fleet, fix-on-failure, and I'll shut up. These fiscal conservatives are wasting money stuff that will be in museums in 10 years.

  48. No, but he sure has the bunch of you well trained……

  49. I'm aware also that Obama has not committed fighter jets to the fray as yet.

    Not true. American Harriers, F15s and F-16s have all been flying over Libya and engaging targets there, as have American B-2s (though, it's true, the B-2s are bombers, not fighters).

    Also, 15 fighters isn't even enough for one active squadron, so that's just a silly number. I also think that if we go with your plan that you should have to personally convince the pilots tasked with flying the "fix on failure" jets to take them up for a patrol, and that you should also be personally tasked with explaining it to their families when they fail.

  50. So, can YOU explain how posting the PM's comments is somehow some sort of attack on PM?

  51. It doesn't matter what the PM does. That's not the issue. Wherry does not comment on the PM here, he just posts an excerpt and lets you guys go at it.

    Have you ever seen Wherry do a positive comment on the PM, as could have been done here?

    And then, of course, as soon as he has posted something about the PM's actions, you guys jump into action (see posting all across this line), and ……mission accomplished. Read the posts, LdKitchenersOwn. Read the remarks on this site and let me know what you see. If you see some sort of descent discussion taking place, you and I differ in what we consider to be a civilized discussion.

  52. That's just idiotic. Wherry almost never comments positively or negatively on any of the things he posts, he just posts them. If you want to hold Wherry responsible for Emily and Cats et al. being a little off their rockers that's fine, but I think that's just silly.

  53. Why should we be coming in on one side of this conflict at all? I oppose Gaddafi, and hope he gets no less than he deserves, but this sort impartiality and bias on the part of the UN and western world is not going to help the post-conflict Libya.

    If you oppose Gaddaffi and hope he gets what he deserves, don't you want to help ensure that post-conflict Libya isn't ruled by Gaddaffi?

Sign in to comment.