I wish I had an answer, graeme, but I'm with you on this one. The UN resolution was for a no-fly zone in support of the rebels but NATO leaders, including our own, have decided that somehow that authorizes regime change which is going to mean another Iraq or Afghanistan. We shouldn't be there and I'm dismayed that the resolution to keep us there had all-party support. We can't really even blame Harpur for this one. I will say that the fact the Elizabeth May was only dissenting vote confirms I was right in casting my vote for her party, even if they weren't contenders in my riding.

Mendalla

Umm, the only sense I can make is the pragmatic:  to murder as many jihadists as possible, preventing them from being democratically elected in Libya?

To the surreal:  have to to keep encouraging Revelations happening.

Once again, graeme announces the falling of the sky.

But, I suppose if you started to make sense now we'd all assume your account had been hacked.

right. nothing's happened.  going to war is a small deal. Nobody knows what it's about. Even democrat and republican congressmen have complained they haven't been told what the war is all about it.

I'm not saying the sky is falling. I'm saying the sky has fallen. We have been killing Libyans for months. And nobody knows why. Tell us, Alta O wise one. Why are we killing people?

I may well have to switch to Green on t his one.

We are killing people because we have been asked to do so by the new, legitimate government of Libya.  To claim that the former government was legitimate or democratic is utterly absurd.  We are killing people because we talk the rhetoric of wanting democracy, of wanting the people to take power in their country, and unfortunately, someone thought we actually meant it.  So now we are stuck.  To not support the Libyan uprising would be to refuse to pay even lip service to the values we claim to support.

The provisional government asked for air support, and we, grudgingly, agreed.

Was it the right decision?  Stephen Lewis and the Right to Protect doctrine would argue yes.  Should we have had substantial debate?  Arguably, but clearly the Canadian people don't care.  No one was interested when Jack tried to start debate during the election.  Either we all get it, or we just don't give a rat's ass.  I'm not sure which.

And switching to Green won't help you, Graeme.  Elizabeth May isn't opposed to the concept, only to the blank cheque approach.

OTOH, who are we to say which government is legitiamte?  THe WEst has a long history of telling other nations who their government should be.  It hasn't usuallly gone well.

I doubt anyone can argue with replacing Qaddafi (or Hussein in Iraq or Mubarak in Egypt or any of a half dozen others).  But when the international communtiy steps in to determine who the government "should" be it raises alarm bells.

THe Right to Protect is a good arguement.  But where does it stop?  Is it providing a buffer?  OR is it violently removing the ones we have determioned to be the agressor?

revmatt - you're comkpletely wrong on every point. The UN (under US pressure) gave Nato a mandate to establish a no fly zone. It did not mandate bombings or assistance on the ground.

As to the rebels standing for democracy - you don't have the faintest idea what they stand for. Nor do I. All we know for sure is that one of their key leaders is a CIA "asset". We haven't the faintest idea what the spread of opinion is.

We know that NATO was not to take sides. So they are in violation of the mandate. We know that NATO was not to have troops on the ground.

But we inow it does - in violation of the mandate.

However, if you think we have a right to bomb countries that are fighting against rebels who want freedom we bomb England for its treatment of the IRA? The US for its bombing of Vietnam and Cambodia? for its genocide in Guatemala? For the killing of innocent civilians, about a milloin of them, in Iraq? (Saddam was recognized around the world as the legitimate ruler of Iraq - and there was no rebel movement. When do we bomb Bahain? If our native people rebel for freedom, should the US bomb us?

1. a recognized government is simply one that is recognized. Nothing more. Most of the world recognizes Ghadaffi's as the government of Libya. The push to "unrecognize " it is very recent, and accepted only among a few, western countries.

2. Nobody has a right to bomb another country simply on the grounds that they don't recognize its government.

3. People have a right to democracy - or to any other form of government they wish. Neither God nor The Bible nor international law come out in favour of any one form of government.  Another country's government is none of our business.

4. Most of our allies, like Bahrain and Saudi Arabia are dictatorships. You can also check out the history of American-imposed dictators in Latin America, Asia, the middle east, and Africa. Most of them have been cruel and murderous with their own people. So why are we the ones supplying them with weapons - and why do we feel morally bound to bomb Ghadaffi?

5. I thin that before a Christian kills, he should really think about it. Too bad it appears to be t he thing that many of our clergy prefer not to think about.

As to # 4 -- Doesn't this explain it? Us foreign policy: "Ok, we're really scairt of Communism, so we'll support dictatorial regimes -- they'll help keep Communism in check -- and we have to be really careful of only supporting Democracies that have no chance of voting in Communists".

the green party (elizabeth may) opposed it. 

Bless her. She was the only one in the House with integrity.

Hi Graeme, for me it is trying to determine the lesser of evils.  Ernie Regehr (sp?) wrote a book about 25 years ago called, I believe  Waging Peace -- it was a textbook for a seminary course on promoting peace in the world exploring a variety of viewpoints from pacifism to responsible police action.  The text started with the evolution of the promotion of law and order in the community where at one time the community took no role in what happened inside the home to where it is standard practice in most democracies for the police and others to have the right to intervene in homes to protect vulnerable people from abusers.  He then took the same concepts to the international level, arguing for the development of an international community prepared and able to protect the vulnerable within nations, recognizing the many hazards and obstacles to the development of such a community.  I believe we are witnessing the bumpy evolution of such a community with many pretty obvious distortions, violent errors and failures.  While I am unsure about what is right in Libya, ultimately actions similar to this will become standard if we are to gain the stability we need to deal well with many escalating health, economic, environmental and other issues.  On the way, the US and other countries will need to go through a significant pyscho/social restructuring that will probably be induced by an economic collapse.  We are in a time when people of a vision of shalom will need to keep that vision in view as we go through a series of crises.

I'm afraid there is no such international institution. We threw away the chance offered by the formation of the UN. We threw it away a long time ago. I see not the slightest reason to believe the bombing of Libya has anything to do with humanitarian concerns. Or anything to do with democracy.

We are on a bumpy road to somewhere. but it isn't international law. It's to wars that will determine who gets to dominate t he world.

SURPRISE!!!

Those freedom loving Libyans we overstepped the international mandate to "protect" are now beating, imprisoning, torturing and killing every black person they can find...

What CAN WE do????

I suggest we start by boycotting the rebel regime and putting an embargo on their oil exports. THEN, if that doesn't put and end to the violent racism and abuse, we can start the air strikes.

Canada and all of NATO should have stayed strictly out of the conflict.    All that will happen is that one evil dictator will be replaced by another.  The same thing will likely happen in Egypt and Syria. 

And Iran. And maybe Pakistan and Venezuela. Very true.

From the BBC (Saturday):

US and UK spy agencies built close ties with their Libyan counterparts during the so-called War on Terror, according to documents discovered at the office of Col Gaddafi's former spy chief.

The papers suggest the CIA abducted several suspected militants from 2002 to 2004 and handed them to Tripoli.

The UK's MI6 also apparently gave the Gaddafi regime details of dissidents.

... Thousands of pieces of correspondence from US and UK officials were uncovered by reporters and activists in an office apparently used by Moussa Koussa, who served for years as Col Gaddafi's spy chief before becoming foreign minister. He defected in the early part of the rebellion, flying to the UK and then on to Qatar.

Rights groups have long accused him of involvement in atrocities, and had called on the UK to arrest him at the time.

The BBC's Kevin Connolly in Tripoli says the documents illuminate a short period when the Libyan intelligence agency was a trusted and valued ally of both MI6 and the CIA, with the tone of exchanges between agents breezy and bordering on the chummy.

Human Rights Watch accused the CIA of condoning torture.

"It wasn't just abducting suspected Islamic militants and handing them over to the Libyan intelligence. The CIA also sent the questions they wanted Libyan intelligence to ask and, from the files, it's very clear they were present in some of the interrogations themselves," said Peter Bouckaert of HRW.

The papers outline the rendition of several suspects, including one that Human Rights Watch has identified as Abdel Hakim Belhaj, known in the documents as Abdullah al-Sadiq, who is now the military commander of the anti-Gaddafi forces in Tripoli. The Americans snatched him in South East Asia before flying him to Tripoli in 2004, the documents claim.

Mr Belhaj, who was involved in an Islamist group attempting to overthrow Col Gaddafi in the early 2000s, had told the Associated Press news agency earlier this week that he had been rendered by the Americans, but held no grudge.

The CIA would not comment on the specifics of the allegations.

Spokeswoman Jennifer Youngblood said: "It can't come as a surprise that the Central Intelligence Agency works with foreign governments to help protect our country from terrorism and other deadly threats."