Canada Kicks Ass
Canada sending troops to UN peacekeeping mission in Mali

REPLY

Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next



martin14 @ Wed Mar 21, 2018 12:01 am

BeaverFever wrote:
How so?


Oh, I am wasting my time again. Read FOG's points.

We are sending our military to one of the worst shitholes on the planet,

yet another Muslim country, top of the corruption lists, to prop up a barely

functioning Muslim government in an open civil war, which means we get to go and kill

even more Muslims on behalf of other Muslims.

There is no peace, so calling it 'peacekeeping' is an utter lie.
There is no peace process. There will not be a peace process.
There is no fix to this shitstorm, because the jihadis get help from Libya,
another country we managed to turn into an utter shithole.
All of it for yet another country that doesn't deserve our help.


Remember, this is the program that you and Tater Tot support.

You might want to sit down and rethink your position.


Dumping more money and more lives down a never ending cesspit just so PM Selfie can pop
over and grab some selfies in the desert. People are going to die because of his recklessness.


Not one drop of blood from any Canadian soldier is worth any of it.

   



BRAH @ Wed Mar 21, 2018 4:19 am

martin14 wrote:
BeaverFever wrote:
How so?


Oh, I am wasting my time again. Read FOG's points.

We are sending our military to one of the worst shitholes on the planet,

yet another Muslim country, top of the corruption lists, to prop up a barely

functioning Muslim government in an open civil war, which means we get to go and kill

even more Muslims on behalf of other Muslims.

There is no peace, so calling it 'peacekeeping' is an utter lie.
There is no peace process. There will not be a peace process.
There is no fix to this shitstorm, because the jihadis get help from Libya,
another country we managed to turn into an utter shithole.
All of it for yet another country that doesn't deserve our help.


Remember, this is the program that you and Tater Tot support.

You might want to sit down and rethink your position.


Dumping more money and more lives down a never ending cesspit just so PM Selfie can pop
over and grab some selfies in the desert. People are going to die because of his recklessness.


Not one drop of blood from any Canadian soldier is worth any of it.

Image
_________________________

"Canada Is Back!" :roll:

   



BeaverFever @ Wed Mar 21, 2018 8:57 am

martin14 wrote:
BeaverFever wrote:
How so?


Oh, I am wasting my time again. Read FOG's points.

We are sending our military to one of the worst shitholes on the planet,

yet another Muslim country, top of the corruption lists, to prop up a barely

functioning Muslim government in an open civil war, which means we get to go and kill

even more Muslims on behalf of other Muslims.

There is no peace, so calling it 'peacekeeping' is an utter lie.
There is no peace process. There will not be a peace process.
There is no fix to this shitstorm, because the jihadis get help from Libya,
another country we managed to turn into an utter shithole.
All of it for yet another country that doesn't deserve our help.


Remember, this is the program that you and Tater Tot support.

You might want to sit down and rethink your position.


Dumping more money and more lives down a never ending cesspit just so PM Selfie can pop
over and grab some selfies in the desert. People are going to die because of his recklessness.


Not one drop of blood from any Canadian soldier is worth any of it.


I never said I support the mission I really have no opinion of it. But the TDS hysteria is pretty funny to watch.

I have no idea whether the overall UN mission will accomplish anything but the claim this will be some kind of bloodbath for Canadian troops or even a major military deployment is laughable.

What’s going to happen is a small token force will go on a mission in a supporting role only and 12 months later they’ll come home. There will probably be few if any casualties regardless of whether the UN is successful or not.


The rest of your post is funny because it pretty much also describes Iraq and Afghanistan, which are the REAL meat-grinder missions dreamed up by conservatives.

Also AFAIK the government in Mali is secular.

   



martin14 @ Wed Mar 21, 2018 9:37 am

BeaverFever wrote:
I never said I support the mission I really have no opinion of it.


Of course you didn't.
Backpedal, aaaaadn begin. :lol:

BeaverFever wrote:
Yeah I’m ok with Canadian troops on UN missions we’ve been doing it for almost 70 years now. Or did you not know that?





Quote:
There will probably be few if any casualties regardless of whether the UN is successful or not.


One drop.

   



bootlegga @ Wed Mar 21, 2018 1:38 pm

I'd say this is peacekeeping about as much as Afghanistan was. To me, this looks much more like a warfighting mission, even though we're only sending helicopters - and the fact that planners want to send escort choppers to protect the Chinooks support my supposition.

I don't know why we have to pretend that UN peacekeeping is even viable in the 21st century. I was proud we were able to accomplish a little bit (emphasis on little) when we first started doing it back in the 1950s (like keeping NATO allies Greece and Turkey from actually going to war), but the world is very different now and I'm very skeptical traditional peacekeeping is even possible these days.

About the only positive I see with this mission is that we're not sending infantry to do counter-insurgency work like we did in Kandahar - and that should keep casualties to a minimum.

   



Thanos @ Wed Mar 21, 2018 2:08 pm

Hope you're right. The ego of Canadian politicians seems incredibly resistant to the fact that peacekeeping does no good in a fight where at least one side behaves like psychotics and has no intention of adhering to cease-fires or of leaving defenseless civilians alone. This should have been learned, but apparently hasn't been, in the bloodbaths in Rwanda and Bosnia. It'll be nothing but an obscenity if any Canadians get killed just so the Liberals can crow about "Lester Pearson's greatest legacy to the world" one more time.

   



martin14 @ Wed Mar 21, 2018 2:42 pm

I wonder who gets to protect our forces on the ground.....

   



PluggyRug @ Wed Mar 21, 2018 2:45 pm

martin14 wrote:
I wonder who gets to protect our forces on the ground.....



Gerald Butthurt Butts, sorry forgot civvies can't have guns. :D

   



martin14 @ Wed Mar 21, 2018 2:56 pm

Oh, and if nothing else, we will probably have to leave the choppers in Mali,
too hot for the equipment.

http://www.dw.com/en/mali-too-hot-for-h ... a-38481363

   



Strutz @ Wed Mar 21, 2018 4:39 pm

This is from an interesting opinion piece on this mission.

Quote:
Canada's upcoming contribution to a United Nations peacekeeping mission in Mali — announced by the Trudeau government on Monday — is destined to become the folly in Mali. It is exactly where Canada and the Canadian military does not need to be.

First of all, the Canadian military has been unequivocal in issuing warnings of deploying to African nations that are in the midst of civil war, rife with Islamic extremism and replete with child soldiers — and all three conditions exist in Mali. It's become one of the deadlier UN missions in history as a result.

A military briefing note on potential peacekeeping missions to Africa, published before the Mali announcement this week, warned that "child soldiers … are likely to be encountered on an increasing basis," which can lead to severe psychological trauma for deployed personnel. The document noted that combat encounters between Canadian soldiers and Mali children could become a public affairs nightmare if the engagement "is not well-handled, and communicated effectively." In fact, the authors continue, "there is a strong potential for significant negative impact on the mission."

More here:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/mali-mission-1.4585038

I know many of you have said before that you detest the CBC comments section (or comments sections from any news source) but there are some very good points made by readers as well. Really, in some ways, not much different from what some around here would post as their opinions.

   



BeaverFever @ Wed Mar 21, 2018 5:47 pm

martin14 wrote:
BeaverFever wrote:
I never said I support the mission I really have no opinion of it.


Of course you didn't.
Backpedal, aaaaadn begin. :lol:

BeaverFever wrote:
Yeah I’m ok with Canadian troops on UN missions we’ve been doing it for almost 70 years now. Or did you not know that?





Quote:
There will probably be few if any casualties regardless of whether the UN is successful or not.


One drop.


Jeezus you’re n ignorant one.

I said I’m ok with Canadians serving on UN missions. In what way does that mean I support the 12 month deployment of 6 helicopters to Mali? The reason why you can’t ever away with acting like an asshole is because it doesn’t work if you’re also a complete idiot.

   



Jabberwalker @ Wed Mar 21, 2018 7:34 pm

martin14 wrote:
Oh, and if nothing else, we will probably have to leave the choppers in Mali,
too hot for the equipment.

http://www.dw.com/en/mali-too-hot-for-h ... a-38481363

The Gryphons are underpowered and therefore do not work well in hot climates. They are okay in Canada's colder, denser atmosphere but they underperform badly in thinner, hot air and therefore they will disappoint all.

When the discussions took place about Afghanistan it was very quickly determined that when you do the weather analysis, that the aircraft could not carry the same combat load of troops that it could in Canada and land in a temperate climate. But all you do then is, you use more of them to do the same mission. Looking at operations that we've done elsewhere in the Middle East, with similar aircraft, they all have limitations of some sort and you work with the limitations.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_CH-146_Griffon

   



martin14 @ Thu Mar 22, 2018 12:03 am

BeaverFever wrote:
I said I’m ok with Canadians serving on UN missions. In what way does that mean I support the 12 month deployment of 6 helicopters to Mali? The reason why you can’t ever away with acting like an asshole is because it doesn’t work if you’re also a complete idiot.


And backpedaling complete. :lol:

And why do you support it ?

Because you are completely unable to separate yourself from PM Selfies ass, that's why.

Everything he does is magic to you.

Now, having realized that NO ONE on this board actually supports this idiocy,

you now get busy trying to moderate your support, so you don't look like the
lone Lieberal lunatic you are.






Jabberwalker wrote:
martin14 wrote:
Oh, and if nothing else, we will probably have to leave the choppers in Mali,
too hot for the equipment.

http://www.dw.com/en/mali-too-hot-for-h ... a-38481363

The Gryphons are underpowered and therefore do not work well in hot climates. They are okay in Canada's colder, denser atmosphere but they underperform badly in thinner, hot air and therefore they will disappoint all.

When the discussions took place about Afghanistan it was very quickly determined that when you do the weather analysis, that the aircraft could not carry the same combat load of troops that it could in Canada and land in a temperate climate. But all you do then is, you use more of them to do the same mission. Looking at operations that we've done elsewhere in the Middle East, with similar aircraft, they all have limitations of some sort and you work with the limitations.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_CH-146_Griffon


Mali is even hotter.

Oh I'm sure it'll be fine. After all, the Chinooks don't really need an escort,
after all it's a 'peacekeeping' mission, right ?
No one will be shooting at us.

Half the German equipment isn't working. All of it, Choppers, APCs, trucks.

This little girl seems to be the go to chopper, after Dutch Apaches and German Tigers
all get grounded for various reasons. They even use it to evac casualities, strapped
on the outside, MASH style. From El Salvador. :D


Image

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/16 ... rs-in-mali

   



rickc @ Thu Mar 22, 2018 1:09 am

So does potato head get to make the call on this deployment all on his own or does the Parliament get a say? If Parliament does get a say, than its high time for its members to get off their asses and shit can this ridiculous idea. No good can come out of this, none whatsoever. You can not make people like each other. If they want to fight, they are going to fight. This is like Barney Fife getting in the middle of the Hatfield's and McCoy's. As far as I am concerned if a single Canadian soldier gets so much as a paper cut in that shit hole, its a travesty.

Don't send some of your best countrymen off to some third world shit hole meat grinder just so dress up boy can feel good about himself. If you absolutely feel like you have to "do something" because its the U.N., than just cut them another check. There are literally hundreds of U.N. members who have not done 1/100 what the Royal Canadian Armed Forces has done for U.N. peacekeeping and N.A.T.O. missions of late. Enough is enough already. Someone else can step up. I feel bad for Germany slogging it out over there, but its also high time for them to put a stop to this misplaced war guilt about a war that ended 73 years ago. They have more than enough problems at home to worry about. If pretty boy has his way, you will too.

   



martin14 @ Thu Mar 22, 2018 1:24 am

rickc wrote:
So does potato head get to make the call on this deployment all on his own or does the Parliament get a say? If Parliament does get a say, than its high time for its members to get off their asses and shit can this ridiculous idea. No good can come out of this, none whatsoever. You can not make people like each other. If they want to fight, they are going to fight. This is like Barney Fife getting in the middle of the Hatfield's and McCoy's. As far as I am concerned if a single Canadian soldier gets so much as a paper cut in that shit hole, its a travesty.

Don't send some of your best countrymen off to some third world shit hole meat grinder just so dress up boy can feel good about himself. If you absolutely feel like you have to "do something" because its the U.N., than just cut them another check. There are literally hundreds of U.N. members who have not done 1/100 what the Royal Canadian Armed Forces has done for U.N. peacekeeping and N.A.T.O. missions of late. Enough is enough already. Someone else can step up. I feel bad for Germany slogging it out over there, but its also high time for them to put a stop to this misplaced war guilt about a war that ended 73 years ago. They have more than enough problems at home to worry about. If pretty boy has his way, you will too.


+5 R=UP

The Conservatives have called for a debate and a vote; it won't matter, the Lieberals have
a majority, and Liberal MPs are power hungry enough, they will not vote against the madness.

   



REPLY

Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next