1  2  Next

<strong>Title: </strong> <a href="/link.php?id=26099" target="_blank">Ignatieff calls for military boost</a> (click to view)

<strong>Category:</strong> <a href="/news/topic/14-misc-cdn" target="_blank">Misc CDN</a>
<strong>Posted By: </strong> <a href="/modules.php?name=Your_Account&op=userinfo&username=Hyack" target="_blank">Hyack</a>
<strong>Date: </strong> 2007-10-15 08:43:01
<strong>Canadian</strong>

   

It's about time. Canada is wasting its time dealing with the UN which is a waste of time and resources in regards to military action. Canada's once proud military is now in poor shape! I'm surprised it's a Liberal who realizes this and is suggesting such great investment in the armed forces.

It's still not enough to make me vote Liberal though.

/screw 'em

   

Spot the replacement for Dion moving right of centre to grab that 40% of Tory votes.

   

"We must never, ever put Romeo Dallaire in that situation again."

What a curious statement.
Is Iggy suggesting it was Canada's fault for not supporting the mission in Rwanda? Is he saying that we should have committed more troops, reguardless of what the UN said?

If so, I definately agree with him. The UN sucks dead goats and the blame that the UN did nothing rests upon Canada also. It may have been a UN mission but if we didn't support it, why did we send our people to lead it?

Although Iggy has been a little more hawkish than all of the Libs, that was when he was an American so he may have been playing to the gallery instead of telling us what he believes.
Eyebrock is right, I believe. This is just positioning.

   

isn 't most politics a chess game?

   

Only for the other side. Our side is honest and truely believes that this is the right thing for Canadians.

   

Frankly, Rwanda in 1994 or Darfur today is a tricky situation. Are you going to invade an occupy a foreign country. Ignatieff said in the piece that we don't want to invade and occupy other countries, but if you want to stop what the government is doing to its own people and use military force to engage in meaningful combat against that nation's military to prevent it from conducting an action that that nation's government has ordered, then it is invasion and occupation. That sort of intervention in the internal affairs of another country cannot be justified by any one nation, or coalition of nations, only a truly international body that represents all the countries of the world (or close to it) has the moral right to order that. That's the UN, and the UN didn't authorize combat against the Rwanda's military. That's what you would expect, only police action, not military action. But if the government has ordered genocide, the national military is not going to listen to some UN peacekeepers on a police mission. In short, such a human rights mission is doomed to failure.

Stop and think about this. If you remove the government of Rwanda in 1994 or Sudan today, then military action is not required. If you don't, then any military action will never succeed. I'm sure some military guy will say "we will win! Hoorah!" However, as long as the local government is in charge and they have ordered genocide, then failure to remove that government means you are supporting that order of genocide. But if you fight against genocide at the same time as supporting the government that ordered genocide, then you are fighting against yourself. You can't win as long as you fight against yourself.

If you do invade and occupy, then you have an Iraq quagmire.

Peacekeeping has always been between two countries. It starts by staying out of it and waiting for both sides to want the fighting to end. As long as one side wants to continue, peacekeeping will never succeed. There will always be some individuals who want the conflict to continue, you have to wait until those intransigent leaders are either removed or killed. Once both sides want peace, you offer troops with light arms to prevent misunderstandings or a few hotheads from starting the fight. Light arms include assault rifles and light APCs, not tanks, artillery, or fighter jets. A peacekeeping force is not intended to stop an organize offensive, and is there with the threat that if either side mounts an organized offensive the peacekeeping forces will pull out and go home, leaving them to kill each other again. If either side does not want to stop fighting, that threat holds no weight. In the case of the government of a country ordering their military to commit genocide against their own people, they don't want peacekeeping forces there at all so the threat to pull out is no threat at all. That's why peacekeeping will never work to enforce human rights.

   

Gee, good thing the world didn't have this mentality in 1944, seeing as there was no international organization at the time.

   

On the Korea of the 50's, or in Bosnia, etc..

Once again, we must throw our hands in the air and accept in a moraly relative way, that half of the world are bastards and because half the UN are bastards, nothing can be done. We must somehow accept that genocide and the murder of innocents is somehow an acceptable alternative lifestyle of foreign cultures.
Double plus good.

   

I think you are being charitable. Way more than half the UN are bastards.

Even most of the democracies are paper tigers frightened of their own shadows and won't do the hard work needed to stop genocide, oppression etc.

The English speaking countries are really the only accountable, politically and military active nations on the planet, with the odd exception.
Without Canada, the US, UK, Australia and New Zealand who would ever fight for a cause? (The Dutch have been ok on this front too).

Now why is it always up to us to keep the world honest?

   

World War 2 was Nazi Germany invading other countries. That's entirely different, and had to be stopped. That is actually an example of what Canada does best: we went into the Netherlands, kicked the Nazis out, then immediately left to attack Nazis in the next country. We didn't stay in the Netherlands, we didn't occupy their country, we freed them then got out. We didn't occupy Belgium, France, Poland, Austria, or any other country. There is a major difference between one country attacking another, and internal politics.

If you really want to stop genocide, then the UN will require the authority to create laws that apply to the entire world, and the authority to enforce them. When a country does commit genocide you have to start by arresting their head of state and throwing him in prison. If you don't do that, your wasting time, and more importantly lives.

   

Fuck the UN dude, it is a beaurocratic mess.

As for Peacekeeping, your description of it certainly isn't what it was way back in the Suez Canal days, when soldiers were put there to stop a fight from ever occurring. Nowadays peacekeeping seems almost pointless when a pullout is ordered as soon as any kinda of aggressive pressure is applied.

   

Winnipegger: How does someone with you're experience get such a warped opinion. So without germany attacking our allies, you'd see no problem with their internal social reconstruction solutions.

Why are you in such a hurry to save Darfur then?

You're sounding as morally corrupt as you're team mates.

   

Darfur is a mess, I don't see an easy answer. Some Liberals want to send the military in, but if the Government of Sudan ordered the military to attack Darfur then it would be another Rwanda. If we take out the government of Sudan then it would be another Iraq. Frankly, that's a mess, intervention is another quagmire waiting to happen.

Ok, I tried to use Darfur when talking to Martha Hall Findlay. I explained we won't have any military available for places like Darfur if we're tied down in Afghanistan. Perhaps I shouldn't have said that since I have serious reservations about military intervention in Darfur. If the Sudan government wants to protect Darfur, then intervention has a chance but they have to start by the Sudan military taking out those who attack Darfur.

   

that last line made no sense dude.

I think the best way to protect Darfur is to sever it from Sudan and have it form it's own country, protected by not peacekeeping forces, in the current sense of the phrase, but protectors of the people of Darfur until such time as it can support itself. This means that countries would put their militaries there for the purpose of protecting the Darfur people.

As this would lead to a more conventional and stable form of military activity and protection (army vs. army plus some guerrilla warfare), I think it would be better understood and accepted by the people of every country involved in protecting Darfur. Hell, when I join the army I'd be damn proud to be a part of such a force, assuming we are wanted.

   

1  2  Next