dizzy

This is not chapter 6 peacekeeping. This is a war theatre. I agree that the circumstances here were, in part, unfortunate. So many things about war are. But I also think it's the notion of war itself you object to, not the specifics of this situation.

We've lost reporters' lives on both sides. Press badges and red crosses no longer have any value on the frontlines. One of the challenges with covering war today is the requirement to embed. On both sides it forces a sort of stockholm syndrome, a close sympathy with the group in which you are embedded. I only say that to provide some context for the seemingly casual engagement between Namir Noor-Eldeen and the rest of the group in the video. He was a fair target but not a bad guy. Just like soldiers, reporters know the risks involved with working/living in a theatre of war. This was an unfortunate event, but understandable. Asking for american forces to take the time to positively confirm the identity of the targets is based on another syndrome - CSI syndrome, the belief that technology and capability exists as it does on TV. It doesn't. Decisions have to be made quickly with the best possible info available in the moment. Most of the time, this leads to correct outcomes. But we also have to remember that this is a war environment, not a hollywood movie.

No, breast implants are cosmetic. But vasectomies are fully covered.

Well said, Molly.

The interests of some are quite obvious. I'm sure we don't have to discuss why zionist-minded evangelical christians and many jews have a vocal interest in Israel. Given the nature of political discourse in the west, there is also little that is complex about why the left has developed a platform on which to build an opposing viewpoint. FTR I suspect that all concerned human rights activists are concerned about atrocities everywhere. I do not think this is the same as asking where the public-at-large's interests lay.

Well, yes and no. The point of the OP was to ask why everyone cares about Israel's atrocities but not the DRC's. I'm saying that domestic interested parties are creating the media fever over israel. I don't think it's irrelevant to note that we have interests in natural resource rich DRC, but yes, it's not as relevant as the former point. Ultimately, my observation would be that we care more about israel simply because of squeeky wheel syndrome and laziness wrt searching out our own particular demons on the world stage.

I mentioned business interests because, when making my initial statement, I did not want to suggest that we don't have stakes in the DRC. They just exist on a plain that few outside of the OXFAM crew care about.

I see where I'm not being clear. Those religious, cultural and political movements I'm referring to are based in north america. They are evangelical christians, zionists, lefty students and radicals who have developed a romantic attachment to the intifadah, etc. The DRC does not have a similar following within north america.

Yes, business interests in places like this like to operate below the publicity radar (profits do not require media attention to be made), while the win strategy for religious, cultural and political movements are typically centered on public relations. That Israel also has business interests with the west, as opposed to only having business interest to the west, is the distinction.

It is a service delivered in a healthcare facility. The thing that sucks about living in civic society is that you sometimes have to support the notion that you must either pay for things you don't agree with or work hard to change them. Based on these rules, I don't have to do anything, as I support access to abortion. I'm guessing from the framing of your post that you don't. So, using your logic, feel free to refuse to pay for the portion of your healthcare taxes and premiums that goes toward this legal medical procedure.

Agreed. I chose the words 'should be' not 'is'.

Yes, you're right. But you might be missing my point.

There are considerable western religious, cultural and political interests in Israel. There are considerable western business interests in the DRC. Guess what, of the four mentioned considerable western interests, only one likes to operate without media scrutiny. So who is really surprised with the outcome re: interest in Israel/Palestine vs. the lack of interest in the DRC?

The solution is simple. If you don't believe in abortion, then organize to repeal the law that allows it. Until then, know that abortion is legal, so it should be free, accessible and widely available.

No, it wasn't only the lack of rotary airlift capacity that lead to deaths. But the reason we have them now is because not having them lead to unnecessary deaths. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/08/07/helicopters-military.html

With all respect, this argument only makes sense in the short-sighted world of politics. A country the size of Canada will always have need for big lift capability of a helicopter like the chinook. The decision to give them up for a period exceeding a decade was big mistake, and having to wait for new ones is just one consequence. Ultimately, it was some of our troops who really covered the cost by unnecessarily sacrificing life and limb.

We sold our chinooks to the dutch during quieter times and then essentially had to rent them back during our mission in Eritrea. There is a need for ground patrol and attack, but moving large groups of soldiers from KAF to their fobs should have been happening by air. There was no reason other than expense (i.e. delaying the purchase of new chinooks) to justify this.

Which is all the troops are for all sides of the political spectrum. The smart soldiers, seamen and airmen see the game for what it is and that they are its pawns. The dumb ones vote big C 'Conservative' without qualification.

The decision to stick to the (cheaper) movement of soldiers by road has lead to a number of deaths, not just for CF Members but also for afghans who had to use the same road networks. Tactically speaking, I think it was our gravest mistake.

I've already stated that I have a heap of complaints about the CAS system. But I don't believe that there is a systematic strategy to steal away kids from people simply because they've made mistakes. Most CAS orgs have in-home interventions as their first objective. If it does not seem like a safe environment can be provided, then removal of the children to a foster home is the next step. The last step, to permanently remove a child, takes the involvement of the courts and serious consideration from many parties. It takes a lot of breakdown on the part of the parent for a child to become a ward of the crown. Again, it would be a lot easier to judge this situation if we actually had facts on the matter. But we don't. So, while I sympathize with this woman's desire for liberty, I don't have any proof that she has fulfilled the associated responsibilities.

This is a woman who lost her daughter to the child welfare system because of a substantiated accusation of abuse or neglect. My girlfriend worked for years on child welfare policy reform and I'll agree that there is much to be embarrassed about in that system. But where in is she going where she will be promised a better option? She talks about the wonderful life she had before the CAS showed up at her door, but she never explains why the CAS showed up at her door. If we knew some of these details, we'd at least have enough info for a conversation...

The UK and Canada about the same per capita KIA rates, both higher than the US, which is a function of their roles leading the combat in the two most volatile regions in Afghanistan (Helmand and Kandahar). When you subtract out Navy, Air Force, and those in the Army who can not be deployed from the overall size of the Canadian Forces, you're talking about a very high contribution of soldiers from a relatively small organization.

Unfortunately, that isn't going to make sitting in a coyote and recording genocide on a notepad without the power to intervene anymore palatable.

We spent years retooling the military from blue to green helmets after the failures in Bosnia. Now we're possibly going back.... ugh. Still, this is the only explanation for Harper's stubborn stance on a full military withdrawal from afghanistan. He knows that many canadians identify with the notion of traditional peacekeeping and will use this as a way to attract votes from the center left.