- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 530
Jim Travers is disingenuous horse's ass....and not suprisingly a favourite on CBC Newsworld for his "enlightened" outlook.
Matt. :
Matt. :
- Reaction score
- 4,685
- Points
- 1,160
Jim Travers ends his column with:
He’s wrong, sadly.
The dying, like the poor, are always with us.
This particular group is not all that distinguishable from others which we, Canada and other ‘determined nations’ have ignored in the past.
Many Army.ca members have opined that the primary utility of armed forces is to give the government of the day options. To do that the armed forces must be capable of doing a certain range of tasks – decades, nearly four of them, of neglect and, occasionally, actual destruction of military capabilities have deprived the Government of Canada of many of its options. Delaying the rebuilding of our military capabilities, even to help others to deal with a real crime against humanity, would a grave strategic error.
Darfur is bad; there will be worse. The longer we postpone giving ourselves useful options the weaker will be our capability to respond.
He’s wrong, sadly.
The dying, like the poor, are always with us.
This particular group is not all that distinguishable from others which we, Canada and other ‘determined nations’ have ignored in the past.
Many Army.ca members have opined that the primary utility of armed forces is to give the government of the day options. To do that the armed forces must be capable of doing a certain range of tasks – decades, nearly four of them, of neglect and, occasionally, actual destruction of military capabilities have deprived the Government of Canada of many of its options. Delaying the rebuilding of our military capabilities, even to help others to deal with a real crime against humanity, would a grave strategic error.
Darfur is bad; there will be worse. The longer we postpone giving ourselves useful options the weaker will be our capability to respond.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Looks like the pressure's building. Wonder where my desert boots are?
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060511/darfur_deployment_060511/20060511?hub=TopStories
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060511/darfur_deployment_060511/20060511?hub=TopStories
- Reaction score
- 7,689
- Points
- 1,160
As usual Edward.
I agree entirely and just finished sending off my screed to Travers pointing out that if 135,000 Americans, ~30,000 allies, ~250,000 Iraqis in uniform and untold numbers of security consultants, backed by the US Navy, secure bases in places like Kuwait and Oman with a solid supply line can't secure Iraq how much more difficult would Darfur be?
The borders are non-existent as are secure bases. The Navy won't get any closer than 1500 km so they are out of the fight entirely. There would be no secure lines of communication.
Darfur and indeed the whole of the interior of Africa would require a massive invasion force that would never be authorized by the UN or local governments. The only good thing that I can see coming out of this is it might force Canadians to rethink if they want to do the "right thing" (God help them) or the UN approved thing. Because those are often mutually exclusive events.
At any rate, practicalities always rear their ugly heads and the right thing or the approved thing are often trumped by the possible thing.
A grumpy Cheers this morning.
I agree entirely and just finished sending off my screed to Travers pointing out that if 135,000 Americans, ~30,000 allies, ~250,000 Iraqis in uniform and untold numbers of security consultants, backed by the US Navy, secure bases in places like Kuwait and Oman with a solid supply line can't secure Iraq how much more difficult would Darfur be?
The borders are non-existent as are secure bases. The Navy won't get any closer than 1500 km so they are out of the fight entirely. There would be no secure lines of communication.
Darfur and indeed the whole of the interior of Africa would require a massive invasion force that would never be authorized by the UN or local governments. The only good thing that I can see coming out of this is it might force Canadians to rethink if they want to do the "right thing" (God help them) or the UN approved thing. Because those are often mutually exclusive events.
At any rate, practicalities always rear their ugly heads and the right thing or the approved thing are often trumped by the possible thing.
A grumpy Cheers this morning.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
Could it be that TF 2-07 was cancelled a little too early ? I know that they need to train troops but now after 4-06 then what ? I think they've taken most of that TF now(2-07) minus the coy tasked to the 1-07, and tasked them to death meaning the guys will still be gone for the same length of time its just that they won't leave the country. That makes for some pretty bitter guys I'm sure, maybe if the CF worried half as much about retention as they did recruiting we wouldn't be chewing all this gum to keep the boat afloat.
Anyhow enough ranting from from me, so maybe a viable option is a one shot deal like Op APOLLO, might not sit too well in Ottawa though, just starting to to make a difference and then we leave ? I can almost hear Jack Layton now, even though if it was up to him the CF would be picking up garbage on the side of the highways(with blue berets on of course)
Well thats about all I have from here, I'll get down off my soapbox now.(lol)
Anyhow enough ranting from from me, so maybe a viable option is a one shot deal like Op APOLLO, might not sit too well in Ottawa though, just starting to to make a difference and then we leave ? I can almost hear Jack Layton now, even though if it was up to him the CF would be picking up garbage on the side of the highways(with blue berets on of course)
Well thats about all I have from here, I'll get down off my soapbox now.(lol)
- Reaction score
- 146
- Points
- 710
Kirkhill: In addition most media reporting--and questions from Layton et al.--simply assume there will be a UN force for Darfur (indeed from some reporting and commentary one could get the impression such a force already exists and Canada is delinquent in not taking part). When in reality such a force will almost certainly require the approval of Khartoum (is a force to invade against the government? not likely). If, without that approval, a resolution for a Chapter VII force is nonetheless brought to the UNSC, China and Russia would almost certainly veto it.
If Sudan agreed to a Chapter VI--"traditional peacekeeping"--force it would be unlikely to achieve much. See B-H. Yet none of these obstacles are dealt with seriously by our politicians and media, Margaret Wente aside (full text not online).
http://www.theglobeandmail.com//servlet/story/LAC.20060511.COWENT11/TPStory/National/columnists
'...
...Jack Layton wants to help Darfur, especially if it means we get to pull our troops out of Afghanistan to do it. "Let there be no doubt," he said in an emotional speech this week. "What we are seeing in Darfur is genocide in slow motion."
Mr. Layton wants to bring back the glory days of peacekeeping under the umbrella of the United Nations. The blue helmets will protect the innocent (if there are any left alive by then) from being raped and slaughtered, just the way they protected those 800,000 people in Rwanda. Even Roméo Dallaire now says the UN is the answer...
If sentiment were deeds and talk were action, Canada would be a hero...
Let no one say Canada hasn't seized the moral high ground on Darfur. Even if we don't have any troops to send, we can help in other ways. We can get Mr. Rock to talk sternly to Russia and China, who are stubbornly refusing to come around. And after the militias peacefully lay down their arms, we can send our experts to help write a constitution.
Unfortunately, I doubt Sudan's Omar Hassan Bashir is too worried yet. He knows his pals will stick up for him. China gets 7 per cent of its oil from Sudan, and in turn sells it weapons to arm its militias...
The Arab nations have been curiously mum about the Muslims dying in Darfur. Is it because they're the wrong kind of Muslims? Or is it because they're being slaughtered by other Muslims, instead of by Americans and Jews? The African Union isn't enthusiastic about Western meddling either. They're insulted that people think their own 7,000-man security force can't do the job -- even though it has been totally ineffectual. The Europeans, meantime, have mostly got out of the peacekeeping business. They'd rather stand back and denounce American imperialism...'
Mark
Ottawa
If Sudan agreed to a Chapter VI--"traditional peacekeeping"--force it would be unlikely to achieve much. See B-H. Yet none of these obstacles are dealt with seriously by our politicians and media, Margaret Wente aside (full text not online).
http://www.theglobeandmail.com//servlet/story/LAC.20060511.COWENT11/TPStory/National/columnists
'...
...Jack Layton wants to help Darfur, especially if it means we get to pull our troops out of Afghanistan to do it. "Let there be no doubt," he said in an emotional speech this week. "What we are seeing in Darfur is genocide in slow motion."
Mr. Layton wants to bring back the glory days of peacekeeping under the umbrella of the United Nations. The blue helmets will protect the innocent (if there are any left alive by then) from being raped and slaughtered, just the way they protected those 800,000 people in Rwanda. Even Roméo Dallaire now says the UN is the answer...
If sentiment were deeds and talk were action, Canada would be a hero...
Let no one say Canada hasn't seized the moral high ground on Darfur. Even if we don't have any troops to send, we can help in other ways. We can get Mr. Rock to talk sternly to Russia and China, who are stubbornly refusing to come around. And after the militias peacefully lay down their arms, we can send our experts to help write a constitution.
Unfortunately, I doubt Sudan's Omar Hassan Bashir is too worried yet. He knows his pals will stick up for him. China gets 7 per cent of its oil from Sudan, and in turn sells it weapons to arm its militias...
The Arab nations have been curiously mum about the Muslims dying in Darfur. Is it because they're the wrong kind of Muslims? Or is it because they're being slaughtered by other Muslims, instead of by Americans and Jews? The African Union isn't enthusiastic about Western meddling either. They're insulted that people think their own 7,000-man security force can't do the job -- even though it has been totally ineffectual. The Europeans, meantime, have mostly got out of the peacekeeping business. They'd rather stand back and denounce American imperialism...'
Mark
Ottawa
- Reaction score
- 7,689
- Points
- 1,160
Sorry to inundate this thread but I just saw Ujjal on CBC "debating" sending troops to Sudan. I guess in CBC parlance one person proselytizing is the same as a debate, but I digress.....
UD wants to send 1500 of you lot to Sudan. When asked what they would do, "traditional Blue Beret peacekeeping" or peacemaking "as in Afghanistan" he replied "both". I thought you were already doing both in Afghanistan. I guess the tune is changing. For the LPC/NDP Afghanistan is now peacemaking (Yankee overtones I guess) while Sudan is "both".
Curiously, again according to UD, if the Sudan and the UN Security Council don't like it then tough....Canada should organize a coalition of the willing and invade anyway....We have a responsibility to protect.
I need some Gravol.
UD wants to send 1500 of you lot to Sudan. When asked what they would do, "traditional Blue Beret peacekeeping" or peacemaking "as in Afghanistan" he replied "both". I thought you were already doing both in Afghanistan. I guess the tune is changing. For the LPC/NDP Afghanistan is now peacemaking (Yankee overtones I guess) while Sudan is "both".
Curiously, again according to UD, if the Sudan and the UN Security Council don't like it then tough....Canada should organize a coalition of the willing and invade anyway....We have a responsibility to protect.
I need some Gravol.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
So let me get this straight. The NDP has no problem with us going to the Sudan without a UN mandate and conduct peacemaking operations but they do for Afghanistan?!?
- Reaction score
- 146
- Points
- 710
Quagmire: mais bien sûr. It's all about politics, not logic or what is realistically practical. I'm just waiting for Black Jack to realize that the strongest advocate for intervention in Darfur is GWB. But Jack, though fast with the mouth, is slow with the grey cells. And Hercule has a better 'stache.
Mark
Ottawa
Mark
Ottawa
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 10
Does it not scare some of you, that crazy people like UD, who clearly change depending on what's the "cool" thing to do at the moment, are the ones that decide to send you people to war? Can I ask this: if there were no civilian leadership, where would YOU GUYS send yourselves? OR...would you just stay home and eat chocolate.
I would.
I would.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
if there were no civilian leadership, we would be living under a militaristic dictatorship, and I would be fighting against it.NightrainFXSTB said:
And winning.
1
17thRecceSgt
Guest
I think I would send myself for some training in...Hawaii..and...Bermuda...places like that. Wearing only a clown suit.
Whats that saying...
"Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer."
Something like that. Para's answer was good to though. :blotto:
Whats that saying...
"Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer."
Something like that. Para's answer was good to though. :blotto:
