Topaz Posted April 20, 2010 Report Posted April 20, 2010 PM Harper is thinking over wheather to send Canadians troops to the Congo. One of the reasons is to try to get African vote to the Security Council on the UN, probably to help the US when it time for voting issues. This war in the Congo is another messy one and again more people will die including any troops sent there. More than 500 Million have died and I wonder when do you draw the line on issues as this one. Thoughts? http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/article/797891--harper-weighs-a-congo-role Quote
M.Dancer Posted April 20, 2010 Report Posted April 20, 2010 PM Harper is thinking over wheather to send Canadians troops to the Congo. One of the reasons is to try to get African vote to the Security Council on the UN, probably to help the US when it time for voting issues. This war in the Congo is another messy one and again more people will die including any troops sent there. More than 500 Million have died and I wonder when do you draw the line on issues as this one. Thoughts? http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/article/797891--harper-weighs-a-congo-role Sure. You should read the story again. This ...."One of the reasons is to try to get African vote to the Security Council on the UN" ..is not supported by the article... On the otherhand it did say this... The request comes as Ottawa lobbies for a Security Council seat, prepares to host the Group of 20, and winds down our Afghan role. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Moonbox Posted April 20, 2010 Report Posted April 20, 2010 Congo is not Afghanistan. It's a mess, but it's actually probably safer. Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he is for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
nicky10013 Posted April 20, 2010 Report Posted April 20, 2010 Congo is not Afghanistan. It's a mess, but it's actually probably safer. How do you figure? Quote
M.Dancer Posted April 20, 2010 Report Posted April 20, 2010 Congo is not Afghanistan. It's a mess, but it's actually probably safer. Why...there has been far more killing in the Congo. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Bonam Posted April 20, 2010 Report Posted April 20, 2010 More than 500 Million have died and I wonder when do you draw the line on issues as this one. Lol, 500 million? I guess the whole population has been killed 7 times over. Try getting your facts, if not straight, at least within the realm of reality. Quote
bloodyminded Posted April 20, 2010 Report Posted April 20, 2010 Lol, 500 million? I guess the whole population has been killed 7 times over. Try getting your facts, if not straight, at least within the realm of reality. Of course you're right. My understanding is that the number is somewhere above five million. Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
eyeball Posted April 20, 2010 Report Posted April 20, 2010 The request comes as Ottawa lobbies for a Security Council seat, prepares to host the Group of 20, and winds down our Afghan role. No one knows whether Canadians would endorse this high-stakes mission. How would we ever know without asking them directly? Speaking of which where on Earth has this strong need or desire of Canada to be a big player on the world's stage come from? Everybody knows the best places on Earth are the quiet unassuming spots off the main throughway's. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
M.Dancer Posted April 20, 2010 Report Posted April 20, 2010 Everybody knows the best places on Earth are the quiet unassuming spots off the main throughway's. That rules out Canada... Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
eyeball Posted April 20, 2010 Report Posted April 20, 2010 Not all of it. Tofino set to ban Starbucks, Tim Hortons and McDonalds Story No Tim Hortons? It's almost unpatriotic. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Moonbox Posted April 20, 2010 Report Posted April 20, 2010 Why...there has been far more killing in the Congo. Civil war does that. Culturally and politically, Congo is completely different from Afghanistan, and likely doesn't have Iran etc funding guerrilas nor does it have the same sort of rabid fanaticism. It's easier to deal with warlords than clerics. Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he is for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
M.Dancer Posted April 20, 2010 Report Posted April 20, 2010 Civil war does that. Culturally and politically, Congo is completely different from Afghanistan, and likely doesn't have Iran etc funding guerrilas nor does it have the same sort of rabid fanaticism. It's easier to deal with warlords than clerics. Completely different, I agree....but warlords are common to both and so if fanaticism. I don't think we should be there either, as we have little nationa interest to be there and no side in the conflict seems willing to disengage. But dangerous it would be...and if the public doesn't like us killing caucasian mulsims, how will they feel about us killing Christian negros? Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Moonbox Posted April 20, 2010 Report Posted April 20, 2010 I don't think we should be there either, as we have little nationa interest to be there and no side in the conflict seems willing to disengage. But dangerous it would be...and if the public doesn't like us killing caucasian mulsims, how will they feel about us killing Christian negros? I think we have legitimate business there if it can save millions of lives, but I'll agree that we probably shouldn't bother. Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he is for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
ToadBrother Posted April 20, 2010 Report Posted April 20, 2010 I think we have legitimate business there if it can save millions of lives, but I'll agree that we probably shouldn't bother. What we are learning is that these little nests of instability can have wide ranging consequences. I'm sure in the 1990s, after the Soviet pullout and the American abandonment of Afghanistan, no one really thought much of the civil war that waged there. It was just another nasty spot filled with leftover armaments from the now-departed Superpowers. That is, until one of the factions managed to gain control of much of the territory and began inviting a major international terrorist ring into its border. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted April 20, 2010 Report Posted April 20, 2010 What we are learning is that these little nests of instability can have wide ranging consequences. I'm sure in the 1990s, after the Soviet pullout and the American abandonment of Afghanistan, no one really thought much of the civil war that waged there. It was just another nasty spot filled with leftover armaments from the now-departed Superpowers. Not quite...United States based NGOs and USAID remained the largest contributors of humanitarian aid to Afghanistan compared to any other nation...by far. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
capricorn Posted April 20, 2010 Report Posted April 20, 2010 Completely different, I agree....but warlords are common to both and so if fanaticism. I don't think we should be there either, as we have little nationa interest to be there and no side in the conflict seems willing to disengage. But dangerous it would be...and if the public doesn't like us killing caucasian mulsims, how will they feel about us killing Christian negros? The Congo is known as the rape capital of the world. What would our military do with all those murderers and rapists they would apprehend? After the accusations of crimes against humanity by our military wrt to afghan detainees, I can just imagine the field day anti-Conservatives would have where incarceration of rapists is concerned. Stay out of the Congo and let Africans tackle their internal problems in that part of their universe. Quote "We always want the best man to win an election. Unfortunately, he never runs." Will Rogers
capricorn Posted May 1, 2010 Report Posted May 1, 2010 The Congolese government wants the UN mission to leave the troubled country by the end of August next year. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8655631.stm That pretty well settles the discussion as to whether we should poke our nose in there. Quote "We always want the best man to win an election. Unfortunately, he never runs." Will Rogers
Bonam Posted May 1, 2010 Report Posted May 1, 2010 We have no business in the Congo whatsoever. Sending troops there would be a horrible mistake. Quote
dizzy Posted May 1, 2010 Report Posted May 1, 2010 Looks like we've made our decision, too. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/canada-rejects-un-request-to-lead-congo-mission/article1552792/ I'm actually quite surprised. Elements of the canadian military have long held a desire to return to africa to address the failures in rwanda. Quote
Muddy Posted May 1, 2010 Report Posted May 1, 2010 Ah ! We will make another peacekeeping success like Rawanda! Stay the hell out. We will be seen as a bunch of white colonials. Get real top notch black military troops from Zimbabwe.I mean those guys are good at murdering opposition. Yes I know they have only been practicing on unarmed political rivals ,but they could use the experience.Leave Africa to Africans. Maybe we could have those in North America who call themselves African Americans or Canadians start their own over seas brigade to go peacekeeping! I will support our troops if they are sent there but if we do they better be equipped with a ruthless mandate to kill bad guys without quarter. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.