Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
nope Canada is not going to be in the U.N. peacekeeping mission in libya we are going to be deployed inby the U.N the Congo since we have a small but well armed well trained force and would be deployed and run operations out the US command center and airbase located there after we finish operations in libya and combat/traning role in afghanistan.
but who knows when we will be out of libya and afghanistan
Canadian soldiers may trade fighting the war in Afghanistan for a more traditional UN peacekeeping mission in Africa when the Kandahar mission comes to an end.
The military has quietly begun angling to take command of the UN's largest peacekeeping mission, which is in Congo, according to sources at the Department of National Defence and in Afghanistan.
The Congo mission, which already involves 20,000 "blue helmets" from 50 countries, including a dozen Canadians, could be headed by Lt.-Gen. Andrew Leslie, an Afghanistan veteran who is about to leave his current job as head of the army to complete a doctoral thesis.
Gen. Walt Natynczyk, who commands the armed forces, has already begun talking up an African mission at the "town halls" he regularly holds with troops in Canada and overseas. In recent months, troops of all ranks in Afghanistan have mentioned Africa as the place where Canada's army and air force are most likely to deploy to next.
While it is unlikely that Congo would be nearly as dangerous for Canadian troops as Afghanistan has been, a deployment of several thousand troops to the jungles of Central Africa would be challenging militarily and logistically. The UN estimates that four million people were killed in Congo between 1998 and 2003 and fighting continues, particularly in the East of the vast country, which has a population of 68 million.
The Lord's Resistance Army, a Ugandan group, massacred hundreds of civilians recently in the northeastern corner of Congo, according to an account in Sunday's New York Times. Hutu rebels from Rwanda are also active in Eastern Congo.
The Canadian military wants to try to make peace in a part of the world made famous by Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness to maintain the momentum and take advantage of the experience it has gained from the Afghan mission and because the mission is a good fit with the "whole of government" approach that Ottawa has taken in Kandahar, according to a source familiar with the thinking of the senior military leadership.
There has been a feeling that the Forces proved something to the government, and to Canadians, earlier this year by running a successful humanitarian operation in Haiti while at the same time providing security at the Vancouver Olympics and leading a combat brigade in Afghanistan, he said.
Africa is of growing interest to the United States, which set up a separate command for the continent last year. But it has no troops in Congo and would probably welcome a Canadian military mission there.
The UN's peacekeeping office in New York has long complained about a shortage of well-trained, well-equipped troops for all of its missions, especially those in Africa. It has also decried western indifference to its African missions.
There already are elite undercover military troops on the ground identifying targets & relaying targeting information for the missiles & planes to bomb. They are also there coordinating rebel attacks.
You mean thay are collaberating with Al Queda??? That is an impeachable offense.
Maybe we should start a pool or something. Not sure Obama has the nads to send more men and women off to die for nothing. Oh...a secondary pool could be drawn up on how long it takes before the Libyans turn on us, not that they loved us to begin with.
The day Obama is caught getting oral sex in the oval office from his intern
Maybe we should start a pool or something. Not sure Obama has the nads to send more men and women off to die for nothing. Oh...a secondary pool could be drawn up on how long it takes before the Libyans turn on us, not that they loved us to begin with.
I realize the satire involved here, but this is serious stuff, and an all too real possibility. Common sense, which 0bama lacks, tells us that if Qaddafi will not "go", like 0bama demands he must, because the rebels can't make him "go" then what? Either 0bama limps away and shoots spitballs from afar, or he pulls up his Pampers and demands we send in the Marines.
Next thing on the radar is when the Sunni rebels from eastern Libya start their terrorist insurgency campaign, and suicide bombings, as they try and take over the country. It's no secret that al Qaeda is in Libya, Hillary Clinton said so earlier this month:
“It's right now not something that we see in the offing, but many of the al-Qaeda activists in Afghanistan and later in Iraq came from Libya and came from eastern Libya, which is now the so-called free area of Libya,” she noted.
Read more: Clinton's Biggest Fear: Al Qaeda Rising In Libya
Let's say Qaddafi remains in power, how can he defend against al Qaeda after we blew his air force and half his military capability all to hell? What makes 0bama think a war torn and destabilized Libya will be less susceptible to a terrorist insurgency then Iraq, especially when "many of the al-Qaeda activists in Afghanistan and later in Iraq came from Libya"????
I realize the satire involved here, but this is serious stuff, and an all too real possibility. Common sense, which 0bama lacks, tells us that if Qaddafi will not "go", like 0bama demands he must, because the rebels can't make him "go" then what? Either 0bama limps away and shoots spitballs from afar, or he pulls up his Pampers and demands we send in the Marines.
Next thing on the radar is when the Sunni rebels from eastern Libya start their terrorist insurgency campaign, and suicide bombings, as they try and take over the country. It's no secret that al Qaeda is in Libya, Hillary Clinton said so earlier this month:
“It's right now not something that we see in the offing, but many of the al-Qaeda activists in Afghanistan and later in Iraq came from Libya and came from eastern Libya, which is now the so-called free area of Libya,” she noted.
Read more: Clinton's Biggest Fear: Al Qaeda Rising In Libya
Let's say Qaddafi remains in power, how can he defend against al Qaeda after we blew his air force and half his military capability all to hell? What makes 0bama think a war torn and destabilized Libya will be less susceptible to a terrorist insurgency then Iraq, especially when "many of the al-Qaeda activists in Afghanistan and later in Iraq came from Libya"????
to be haonest as long as we don't deploy any troops on the ground who care about gaddafi. Too be honest a gaddafi and pro-gaddafi supporters Vs. Al-queda war would mean two known terroist groups that have attacked the west would battle it out and that would be a ok outcome as long as we are not involved
Right now we are doing nothing but taking sides in a civil war. The rebels are basically commiting treason. If the founding fathers had lost the revolutionary war, there would have been a lot of people executed for treason. In fact, even today you can get the death penalty for treason. I think the last people to receive that sentence were the ones that gave the Soviets our nuclear technology back in the 50's?
The United States simply wants Gaddafi to lose, we are trying to give the rebels all the tactical support we can while still giving the illusion that they are the ones actually fighting the war. We will continue to use cruise missiles and bombing runs to disable Gaddafi's ability to make war against the rebels. Including destroying tanks, planes, airfields, administration buildings, etc. If the rebels win, the United States will stand back and act like we never did anything to help them at all. If the rebels start to lose, we will start expanding the amount of bombing we do, or we will end up putting boots on the ground. America will not allow Gaddafi to remain in power, period.
I don't know enough about the situation on the ground to give my opinion, but it seems like Gaddafi by far has the upper hand against the rebels. The United States is losing support for this war from all sides, NATO doesn't want to have to deal with it. Right now I would give us about a 30% chance of putting American troops on the ground in Libya.
If the US were only trying to enforce a "no-fly" zone, we could park a couple Navy Ageis missle cruisers or destroyers off the cost and shoot down anything Gadaffi chooses to put up, at no risk to American pilots.
No-fly zone is BS. We have picked sides in a civil war, and are attacking Gadaffi's forces on the ground. We are in a war, no matter attempts to deny it. I hope the current admininstration has been smart enough to research just who is behind the resistance, before supporting another puppet government supposedly sympathetic to our interests.
It's hard not to see this going the way of Iran (with the Shaw), Iraq or Afganistan. Isn't the definition of insanity doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome?
1- Forcing a "No Fly Zone" has always been about taking a side.
2- And to think the Libyan rebels are complaining that the UN forces are not doing anything about the forces on the ground.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
