PDA

View Full Version : Where Would You Rather Canada's Troops Be - Afghanistan Or Darfur?


skanji
May 9th, 2006, 09:15 AM
Where Would You Rather Canada's Troops Be - Afghanistan Or Darfur?

KsprayDad
May 9th, 2006, 09:17 AM
I would rather that we had a strong enough military to take care of Canada's interests in ALL theatres.

B40
May 9th, 2006, 09:18 AM
C) Canada

lip1978
May 9th, 2006, 09:18 AM
Damn tough poll, and it took my awhile to answer and justify it.

I chose Afghanistan because of the way the world changed on 9/11, and Canada's role within that world should be to respect its NATO responsabilities.
Let Spanish troops, and those who don't want to participate in the "War on Terror" help in Darfur, but right now, Afghanistan is a legitimate location for Canadian troops.

asim99
May 9th, 2006, 09:22 AM
west bank...to keep those terrorist settlers from building the illegal settlements

darfur...but only as peacekeepers

they should not definitely be janitors tasked with cleaning american crap in afghanistan...

skanji
May 9th, 2006, 09:23 AM
Damn tough poll, and it took my awhile to answer and justify it.

I chose Afghanistan because of the way the world changed on 9/11, and Canada's role within that world should be to respect its NATO responsabilities.
Let Spanish troops, and those who don't want to participate in the "War on Terror" help in Darfur, but right now, Afghanistan is a legitimate location for Canadian troops.

Good points, but I think Canada could really lead the world in what is becoming an unbearable situation in Darfur...even Bush is pressing the UN for action: http://www.boston.com/news/world/africa/articles/2006/05/09/bush_urges_larger_un_role_in_darfur/

We are really living the darkest time in our history.
http://www.darfurgenocide.org/

teknoluv
May 9th, 2006, 09:30 AM
I'd say along the US border, since the only country on earth that has ever invaded Canada throughout our history is the US. ;p

KsprayDad
May 9th, 2006, 09:59 AM
I'd say along the US border, since the only country on earth that has ever invaded Canada throughout our history is the US. ;p

Denmark is CURRENTLY invading Canada at Hans Island.

Crotchety Old Man
May 9th, 2006, 10:04 AM
Seeing as Gordon O'Connor*, our new Minister of Defense's previous job was an eight year stint as a salesman for the "defense" industry (http://dominionpaper.ca/media_analysis/2006/03/09/canadas_mi.html) - I imagine we can look forward to lots of purchase orders for new war stuff.

But that Darfur mission, that seems a little too human-aidey - that's old school Canada, right? We're all about joining the US's Global War on Terror® now. Why save people, when we should be concentrating on killing them? Let's get this (spending) party started**!

*[O'Connor]... spent eight years as a lobbyist for some of Canada’s largest military contractors. In his words, he was “helping defense companies navigate complicated government procurement rules.” He ended his career as a lobbyist only to run for public office. He won a seat and became a Member of Parliament in June 2004. He then became the Conservative Party’s Critic for National Defense and was a member of the Standing Committee on National Defense and Veterans Affairs.

When he was new to the House of Commons in November 2004, O’Connor’s lobbyist past was scrutinized by journalists. At the time he flatly denied that his work as a military lobbyist could pose a potential conflict of interest in his role as defense critic. “I don’t decide who wins and loses contracts,” said O’Connor at the time. Now that’s he’s Minister of Defense, he will decide who wins and loses contracts.
**The transformation of Canada’s military was well underway before the Conservatives took power, but there are indications that the Conservative Government will outdo the Liberals. Military spending under the Liberals was already at its highest level since World War II, with additional spending of $12.8 billion promised by in 2004. The Conservatives will add at least another $5.3 billion to this. They will also be expanding the Canadian forces by 13,000 soldiers, 8,000 more than the Liberals had planned, all geared at allowing Canada to play “a more aggressive role in fighting terrorism.”

The military’s new direction involves greater emphasis on interoperability with US and other militaries committed to “the long war.” Chief of Defense Staff, Rick Hillier, makes frequent appearances in the press, appealing for more money for the military. On February 25th, the second headline on Mike Blanchfield’s National Post article was Hillier’s assertion: “we need money.”

KsprayDad
May 9th, 2006, 10:20 AM
Seeing as Gordon O'Connor*, our new Minister of Defense's previous job was an eight year stint as a salesman for the "defense" industry (http://dominionpaper.ca/media_analysis/2006/03/09/canadas_mi.html) - I imagine we can look forward to lots of purchase orders for new war stuff.

But that Darfur mission, that seems a little too human-aidey - that's old school Canada, right? We're all about joining the US's Global War on Terror® now. Why save people, when we should be concentrating on killing them? Let's get this (spending) party started**!

You are sitting here safe in Canada BECAUSE we are so close to the US.

Are you saying you think the Military doesn't need more money??!! Our 2003 expenditures on the military were only 1.1% of GDP...this to protect one of the largest land masses in the world. Switzerland (you remember them right? the 'neutral' country? They spent 1%.)

Would you rather NOT be fighting terrorsism. Would you rather the fight was in YOUR city in your house? Who is going to save your ass when that happens? Get your flowers ready...I hear they are really effective against radicals.

hagbard
May 9th, 2006, 10:22 AM
Nonexistent. We should mine our own business.

asim99
May 9th, 2006, 10:24 AM
You are sitting here safe in Canada BECAUSE we are so close to the US.
you are funny!

hagbard
May 9th, 2006, 10:26 AM
You are sitting here safe in Canada BECAUSE we are so close to the US.

Are you saying you think the Military doesn't need more money??!! Our 2003 expenditures on the military were only 1.1% of GDP...this to protect one of the largest land masses in the world. Switzerland (you remember them right? the 'neutral' country? They spent 1%.)

Would you rather NOT be fighting terrorsism. Would you rather the fight was in YOUR city in your house? Who is going to save your ass when that happens? Get your flowers ready...I hear they are really effective against radicals.

We don't need a military.

First off, who would want to invade us? Secondly, as you point out, anyone who tries will be up against the Americans. Third, the only real threat to Canadian sovereignty is the US, and they can undermine that with a single phone call (as they already do on a regular basis).

The only use for a military in this country is to provide cannon fodder for the American Empire. I'm certainly not going to aid them in doing that.

dark169
May 9th, 2006, 10:36 AM
Stay in afghanistan, the simple fact is we can't do both and we already have commitments.

masterhapposai
May 9th, 2006, 10:47 AM
africa

there's no logical reason to be anywhere else, in terms of priority.

The fact that black Africans in Darfur are exclusively Muslim has not stopped the Arab Janjaweed militias and the government from exterminating them.

look at that. there's nothing like it in afghan

To prefer to be in afghan over darfur says a lot about someone's character.

Important, too, is that Arab states should condemn Sudan; otherwise their anger over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict rings hollow. How can they protest the killing of Palestinians when their kin exterminate Africans in Sudan?

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0714/p09s02-coop.html

KsprayDad
May 9th, 2006, 10:50 AM
We don't need a military.



Now you're being funny...

hagbard
May 9th, 2006, 10:53 AM
Now you're being funny...

You're being funny to think we need one.

aimie
May 9th, 2006, 10:58 AM
Darfur, as peacekeepers.

On a side note, I think the US has donated approx 180 million to Darfur, and Canada has only donated about 3.8 million.

Somebody needs to get in there ASAP and help out.

KsprayDad
May 9th, 2006, 11:07 AM
On a side note, I think the US has donated approx 180 million to Darfur, and Canada has only donated about 3.8 million.


And all the lefties seem to gloss over that.

asim99
May 9th, 2006, 11:22 AM
And all the lefties seem to gloss over that.
canada should give more, of course
however, american aid is hogwash compared to what they are spending in other places

Crotchety Old Man
May 9th, 2006, 11:24 AM
We're not going to be making any profit on Darfur - let's stay where the money is.

hagbard
May 9th, 2006, 11:53 AM
Darfur is no more of our business than Afghanistan.

xKagex
May 9th, 2006, 12:22 PM
... I'm tired of Canada supporting a drug-money-laundering operation in Afghanistan. I'd like to see us helping in Sudan, but I'm not sure we could do it objectively anymore.

What happened to Canada? Oh right.. we're living in the new post 9/11 world of the terrorvision. We don't need to fear with people like Bushy and Harper and their friends in the arms business! Sigh, where's a rolling-eye emoticon when you need one.

FastFokker
May 9th, 2006, 12:32 PM
Should have included an option of "Don't know" in the poll as that's probably where most Canadians actually stand.

Most of us can't point out Darfur or Afghanistan on a map and most of us can't actually explain what's going on in either nation.

aquariaguy
May 9th, 2006, 12:35 PM
They should be in Darfur as peacekeepers. Not cannon fodder and bait for American soldiers, whom sometimes kill the bait, in Afghanistan.

KsprayDad
May 9th, 2006, 03:31 PM
They should be in Darfur as peacekeepers. Not cannon fodder and bait for American soldiers, whom sometimes kill the bait, in Afghanistan.

You do know we are in Afganistan under a UN sanctioned mission right?

wali
May 9th, 2006, 04:07 PM
Africa is a lost hope I'm afraid. No one cares about Africa no matter how many celebrities go there and take photos with starving children.

Howlader
May 9th, 2006, 04:56 PM
If Canada is going to send in peacekeepers, let them be peacekeepers - not just standing the middle of a crossfire while two sides shoot at eachother.

That said, the military made an agreement to deploy combat troops to Afghanistan, so re-negging on that isn't cool.

blackhawk
May 9th, 2006, 07:22 PM
I'd say along the US border, since the only country on earth that has ever invaded Canada throughout our history is the US. ;p

The french also attacked british outposts in canada and the only arctic sea battle was fought in hudson bay by the french and british off churchill manitoba.

As well, german troops landed in labrador in WW2 to plant primitive automated weather stations and the japanese also shelled british columbia from a submarine.

But the only real invasion was by the americans although occupying and burning parts of york(toronto) helped me forgive them ;)

blackhawk
May 9th, 2006, 07:27 PM
The UN has failed time and time again in africa by keeping the western nations uninvolved or so limiting their actions as to render them meaningless.

UN participation would doom any action.

Afghanistan is a commitment made a long time ago and abandoning the work done their now to let them slide back into anarchy and rule of force would be a blow to every child and woman there.

FastFokker
May 9th, 2006, 07:49 PM
Nobody cares about Africa... sad, but reality.

Evil Baby
May 9th, 2006, 08:00 PM
I voted for Dafur. Without a doubt Canada should be anywhere where people are being marginalized to such an extent.

masterhapposai
May 9th, 2006, 08:05 PM
The UN has failed time and time again in africa by keeping the western nations uninvolved or so limiting their actions as to render them meaningless.

UN participation would doom any action.

Afghanistan is a commitment made a long time ago and abandoning the work done their now to let them slide back into anarchy and rule of force would be a blow to every child and woman there.

anarchy?

-infinite opium growth compared to the 0% under Taliban rule
-attempt to execute a christian convert almost went through, but buckled under global pressure, so I'm sure there's tons executed off the TV
-civilian casualties in the thousands if not tens of thousands

etc..


Whereas in Africa:

-every peacekeeper deployed could potentially save thousands of lives EACH.
-0 civilian casualties. not going in there creates more casualties, coming in to help decreases, not increases


Africa is a logistical "win".

konfusion666
May 9th, 2006, 08:14 PM
Didn't anyone read that book by General Romeo Dallaire, now a Senator?

Definitely Sudan/Africa is in greater need of assistance than Afghanistan...