Speaking of Quagmires

[Born Free]

Excuse me but, I said the usual suspects had something to do with the ancient animosities between Serbs and croats, croats and bosnians or bosnians and serbs? I can see where you've tried to imply I said something like this but...

Anyone else remember the days when Morris wasn't such a lame-assed lying sack of poop?

If you take out the lying part...I can name the days...

[M.Dancer]

And as you pointed out traditional peacekeeping usually deals with retreating armies while diplomats deal with the politicans. All the same I suspect ordinary people on the ground who are caught up in these affairs usually weary of the fight long before the rest do.

No it isn't, it's just your usual strawman bullshit.

In any case I notice the two conflicts you cite involved people and regions that were caught up in the super conflict between the ususal suspects.

Who said they did?

Stoking or exploiting conflict at the national or cultural level however is more in the nature of a rogue state.

Of course you've got your rogues and then you've got your super-rogues.

Excuse me but, I said the usual suspects had something to do with the ancient animosities between Serbs and croats, croats and bosnians or bosnians and serbs? I can see where you've tried to imply I said something like this but...

Anyone else remember the days when Morris wasn't such a lame-assed lying sack of poop?

Of course when confronted with your own normal incoherent babbling, you try to weasle out...

But clearly when you said,

I notice the two conflicts you cite involved people and regions that were caught up in the super conflict between the ususal suspects

You meant the super powers...either that or?

[M.Dancer]

Excuse me but, I said the usual suspects had something to do with the ancient animosities between Serbs and croats, croats and bosnians or bosnians and serbs? I can see where you've tried to imply I said something like this but...

Anyone else remember the days when Morris wasn't such a lame-assed lying sack of poop?

Interesting..how did you say something in response to something I had yet said...

[eyeball]

You meant the super powers...either that or?

I meant the super powers and their conflicts....not either or anything else.

Edited April 5, 2010 by eyeball

[M.Dancer]

I meant the super powers and their conflicts....not either or anything else.

So when you said you didn't mean that, you actually meant that....

[eyeball]

Interesting articles and links... but "why it won't work today" where ? It will work some places, but I presume you're saying not in Afghanistan ?

I take it you're confused too.

[eyeball]

At least the thread title is spot on.

[M.Dancer]

There seems to be more talk about traditional Peacekeeping in the Congo. I hope the great giant brains realize it will not be a traditional peacekeeping role..and if Canadain find that killing caucasion afghans to be distasteful, how will they feel about black africans?

Never the less, the criteria for peacekeeping has not been met in the Congo.

MONUC, as the UN force is dubbed in French, is underfunded and undersupplied, and has been neither competent militarily nor effective in halting the violence that is estimated to have killed more than five million Congolese since 1999. Moreover, as so often is the case with UN missions, the mandate is fuzzy, its political support in New York doubtful. Many also consider the UN troops in-country to be part of the problem, and charges of corruption and rape have been levelled against them. And even though MONUC has supported the Kinshasa government, President Joseph Kabila has demanded that the UN leave Congo by mid-2011.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/defining-canadas-role-in-congo/article1525307/

Edited April 7, 2010 by M.Dancer

[eyeball]

Should Canada involve itself in this horrifying mess?

A very close ally of our's, Belgium, has been diddling the place for centuries and we've likewise been involved for decades.

The aversion of Western powers to communism and leftist ideology influenced their decision to finance Mobutu's quest to maintain "order" in the new state by neutralizing Kasavubu and Lumumba in a coup by proxy.

Source

I would hazard to guess we also have corporate interests in the place.

What this means is that, if the Canadian Forces go into Congo, they will need fleets of helicopters, potable water and a secure supply line. Where's that to come from?

Belgium I'd say. In the meantime I'd be more concerned about where our moral and ethical reasons for getting militarily involved are coming from. I mean, we were more concerned about the big bad commies than the Belgians?

To enforce [belgium's] rubber quotas, the army, the Force Publique (FP), was called in. The Force Publique made the practice of cutting off the limbs of the natives as a means of enforcing rubber quotas a matter of policy; this practice was widespread. During the period 1885–1908, between 5 and 15 (the commonly accepted figure is about 10) million Congolese died as a consequence of exploitation and diseases.

Edited April 7, 2010 by eyeball

[ToadBrother]

A very close ally of our's, Belgium, has been diddling the place for centuries and we've likewise been involved for decades.

As vile as Belgium's colonial actions were (possibly among the worst in the history of European colonialism), we're talking about things went on a century ago. Couldn't you find something slightly more recent to cry crocodile tears about?

[eyeball]

As vile as Belgium's colonial actions were (possibly among the worst in the history of European colonialism), we're talking about things went on a century ago. Couldn't you find something slightly more recent to cry crocodile tears about?

I did.

The aversion of Western powers to communism and leftist ideology influenced their decision to finance Mobutu's quest to maintain "order" in the new state by neutralizing Kasavubu and Lumumba in a coup by proxy.