Signals.Cpl Posted June 9, 2012 Report Share Posted June 9, 2012 there are currently 16 active UN Peacekeeping missions across the world... from your lowly Cpl military perspective, which of these active missions are useless - and why? What's missing/lacking to bring them above your esteemed "useless designation"? How many of them are improving the situation? How many of them can and do prevent massacres? How many of them have long term chance of success rather then repetition of Rwanda? The DPKO is understaffed, and unequipped to meet an emergency of any sort. Look at Syria and the actions of the UN, we have the UN going there with the intention of recording the crimes for future warcrimes trial, rather then preventing the massacres they are recording for the aftermath...real helpful. If the UN were to be successful in any peacekeeping they need to be able to deploy a force that maintains the peace when there is peace to maintain but can also make peace, and they need diplomats who can and will solve the problems while the Peacekeepers hold down the fort rather then dragging out a solution for a generation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signals.Cpl Posted June 9, 2012 Report Share Posted June 9, 2012 So what? That isn't my point. My point is your they will invade us argument is wrong. We know of a country that has resources like Canada who no one has invaded that is right next door and have a thousandth of the population we have. When did I say that Iceland will invade us? Resources like Canada? Care to provide a source? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted June 9, 2012 Report Share Posted June 9, 2012 (edited) When did I say that Iceland will invade us? Resources like Canada? Care to provide a source? I am saying that what you are scared of hasn't happened to Iceland. So....... there goes your theory. Along with other countries who are much much smaller and easier to take over then Canada. Edited June 9, 2012 by punked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted June 9, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 9, 2012 Thread drift, gentlemen. This is about the Conservatives not being able to disclose the DoD's expenses because they have no idea where the money went, therefore misleading parliament on costs... again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted June 9, 2012 Report Share Posted June 9, 2012 Thread drift, gentlemen. This is about the Conservatives not being able to disclose the DoD's expenses because they have no idea where the money went, therefore misleading parliament on costs... again. His point is though. That doesn't matter, as long as we spend huge amounts of money in anyway toward the Military people wont invade us. He gives this argument whenever you question military spending even if it is wasteful and I am getting tired of it because it is wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted June 9, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 9, 2012 His point is though. That doesn't matter, as long as we spend huge amounts of money in anyway toward the Military people wont invade us. He gives this argument whenever you question military spending even if it is wasteful and I am getting tired of it because it is wrong. My bad. I thought you guys had drifted into a discussion about the collapse of the Eurozone. I saw Iceland and over-reacted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted June 9, 2012 Report Share Posted June 9, 2012 there are currently 16 active UN Peacekeeping missions across the world... from your lowly Cpl military perspective, which of these active missions are useless - and why? What's missing/lacking to bring them above your esteemed "useless designation"? How many of them are improving the situation? How many of them can and do prevent massacres? How many of them have long term chance of success rather then repetition of Rwanda? oh, excuse me... I didn't think you'd be so quick to deflect a question with another question. You called UN Peacekeeping missions useless - a broad sweeping characterization. I thought perhaps your supposed military background might afford a more critical eye/perspective offered back. as for Rwanda, the principal fault for it's degrees of fail rests... principally with the U.S. governments purposeful blocking actions/intervention. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signals.Cpl Posted June 9, 2012 Report Share Posted June 9, 2012 Sierra Leone was successful. When they were done killing each other the UN stepped in to do what? Maintain peace? Sure helped the tens of thousands who died and the millions who were displaced... Burundi was successful. Where was the UN in 94? Haiti... well thats open for debate. but if you are suggesting you could successfully tame haiti with combat missions, I believe you are sadly mistaken. Sure a combat mission would help them...but the combat mission should come in the form of police forces to combat gangs rather then soldiers playing police officer. All combat missions require keeping the peace to achieve victory. And peacekeeping missions sometimes require force, something the UN has proven unable to provide in times of need. Thus even in countries where they have gone to war, the end result is a followup by peacekeepers to maintain the fragile end to combat activities. It doesn't take much for an incident to occur and reflare up a volatile situation. You mean like in Rwanda? If a war should break out again in a location with a peacekeeping mission, the PK are more then useless, as most of them come from third world countries that use then as a source of income. What I will say, having suffered through the Liberal Era of Military cutbacks, is that if the Conservatives maintain their level of fiscal incompentence and allow these kinds of bureacratic and corporate decisions to rule the department of defence..... We need to separate politics and the military, if the DND asks for something, then they should provide valid reasons for the project in question rather then asking for one thing, it becomes political objective and even if they get it, it is almost unrecognizable. If you want efficiency, then cut the many useless positions and replace them with efficient once, remove politics from the military and let the military decide which bases to close, and what to keep open, and then we can cut inefficiency and save money. you will see a backlash to failed and foolish military spending. Foolish spending how? A Very Large chunk of the budget goes to salary of the members, and support for them in one way or another and the rest goes to maintain aging equipment and infrastructure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signals.Cpl Posted June 9, 2012 Report Share Posted June 9, 2012 I am saying that what you are scared of hasn't happened to Iceland. So....... there goes your theory. Along with other countries who are much much smaller and easier to take over then Canada. Again WHY hasn't it happened to Iceland? I mean we could always ask the US to provide army airforce and navy units to protect Canada as well... Saves money right? Thats the thing you seem to ignore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signals.Cpl Posted June 9, 2012 Report Share Posted June 9, 2012 His point is though. That doesn't matter, as long as we spend huge amounts of money in anyway toward the Military people wont invade us. He gives this argument whenever you question military spending even if it is wasteful and I am getting tired of it because it is wrong. Oh man, I forgot you can't read and you prefer hear what you want rather then what is said... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted June 9, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 9, 2012 Oh man, I forgot you can't read and you prefer hear what you want rather then what is said... Sounds like some weird form of synesthesia, where you don't hear what you're reading properly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signals.Cpl Posted June 9, 2012 Report Share Posted June 9, 2012 oh, excuse me... I didn't think you'd be so quick to deflect a question with another question. You called UN Peacekeeping missions useless - a broad sweeping characterization. I thought perhaps your supposed military background might afford a more critical eye/perspective offered back. as for Rwanda, the principal fault for it's degrees of fail rests... principally with the U.S. governments purposeful blocking actions/intervention. Answer the questions? If you cannot answer those questions then those missions are useless. Just because they are needed does not mean that the UN can provide useful support. And again its not the US only, there are 5 members of the SC who can shoot down any idea, and usually it is either Russia, or China... but I guess that does not fit in with anti-American party line now does it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signals.Cpl Posted June 9, 2012 Report Share Posted June 9, 2012 Sounds like some weird form of synesthesia, where you don't hear what you're reading properly. He seems to ignore everything written and just replies to what he thinks was said as opposed to what was said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted June 9, 2012 Report Share Posted June 9, 2012 Again WHY hasn't it happened to Iceland? I mean we could always ask the US to provide army airforce and navy units to protect Canada as well... Saves money right? Thats the thing you seem to ignore. Yah I ignore it so much that I almost forgot they closed the US base on Iceland 7 years ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted June 9, 2012 Report Share Posted June 9, 2012 He seems to ignore everything written and just replies to what he thinks was said as opposed to what was said. No I am just going with the facts you seem to think it is 1980 and I live in 2012. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted June 9, 2012 Report Share Posted June 9, 2012 oh, excuse me... I didn't think you'd be so quick to deflect a question with another question. You called UN Peacekeeping missions useless - a broad sweeping characterization. I thought perhaps your supposed military background might afford a more critical eye/perspective offered back. as for Rwanda, the principal fault for it's degrees of fail rests... principally with the U.S. governments purposeful blocking actions/intervention. Answer the questions? If you cannot answer those questions then those missions are useless. Just because they are needed does not mean that the UN can provide useful support. And again its not the US only, there are 5 members of the SC who can shoot down any idea, and usually it is either Russia, or China... but I guess that does not fit in with anti-American party line now does it? no problem - I accept it was just another of your unfounded statements. As for Rwanda, you brought it up... I simply schooled you as to where the principal fault for the genocide lay - with the U.S. delaying actions/intervention. I'll also quote ya Bill Clinton's apology... if you'd like that as well. It is quite telling you so readily play the 'anti-American' card, even when a most accepted critical summation on the U.S.'s delaying/intervention most certainly applies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westguy Posted June 9, 2012 Report Share Posted June 9, 2012 Quebec isn't subsidized by anyone. Stop perpetuating this ridiculous myth. So you believe that billions of Alberta transfer payments are not going to other provinces??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted June 9, 2012 Report Share Posted June 9, 2012 So you believe that billions of Alberta transfer payments are not going to other provinces??? I believe no one in Alberta was crying when they were building the railroad to their province, or the grain elevators, or when they were throwing in money to build the infrastructure to get the oil out of the ground. We are a united country we are Canadians, we pony up to make this country better from ocean to ocean. Alberta is no island stop pretending it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted June 9, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 9, 2012 So you believe that billions of Alberta transfer payments are not going to other provinces??? Alberta doesn't make transfer payments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signals.Cpl Posted June 9, 2012 Report Share Posted June 9, 2012 Yah I ignore it so much that I almost forgot they closed the US base on Iceland 7 years ago. Well in that case lets disarm... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signals.Cpl Posted June 9, 2012 Report Share Posted June 9, 2012 No I am just going with the facts you seem to think it is 1980 and I live in 2012. And you think that from now until the end of time there will never, ever be a threat to Canada? Never requiring the use of military force to protect our independence? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signals.Cpl Posted June 9, 2012 Report Share Posted June 9, 2012 no problem - I accept it was just another of your unfounded statements. As for Rwanda, you brought it up... I simply schooled you as to where the principal fault for the genocide lay - with the U.S. delaying actions/intervention. I'll also quote ya Bill Clinton's apology... if you'd like that as well. It is quite telling you so readily play the 'anti-American' card, even when a most accepted critical summation on the U.S.'s delaying/intervention most certainly applies. You schooled me right? What about the French? They were as much to blame for the genocide as Belgium. I get that you don't have the most basic of understanding of how the UN works so Ill let you go on believing what you want, thankfully there are people who live in the real world... Did Russia, China, England and France want to act? If they did want to act, which western nation was willing to deploy troops to Rwanda? Canada didn't want anything to do with Rwanda. Third world countries were offering to take part in the mission but they had no equipment little training and questionable human rights records which most likely would have increased the problem. We can lay the blame at the feet of the Americans, but I can safely say that the whole world failed Rwanda not just one nation but once again you can continue with your misguided assumptions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted June 9, 2012 Report Share Posted June 9, 2012 And you think that from now until the end of time there will never, ever be a threat to Canada? Never requiring the use of military force to protect our independence? Nope I think when we need to and want to we can call up however many Canadians we need to defend this country. Until that time though paying 60,000 people (not to mention all the retired people) to do nothing is probably a waste and can be afforded to be cut back on. That is all I am saying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signals.Cpl Posted June 9, 2012 Report Share Posted June 9, 2012 Nope I think when we need to and want to we can call up however many Canadians we need to defend this country. Until that time though paying 60,000 people (not to mention all the retired people) to do nothing is probably a waste and can be afforded to be cut back on. That is all I am saying. I agree with you, we need to conscript 250,000 people if the need and send them to battle, the once that survive will be that much smarter, the once that die well survival of the fittest... And then what? How do we get the fighters e need, or the frigates or the tanks? How do we build up the logistics needed to support an expanding force? Who would be responsible for equipping us in a short notice? The US? What happens if there is a natural disaster? Do we start discussing how to organize a military unit to send there? How do you intent to train CSOR or JTF2 in short notice? While we are at it why not disband the Fire Department and try to build them up only when there is a fire? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted June 9, 2012 Report Share Posted June 9, 2012 (edited) I agree with you, we need to conscript 250,000 people if the need and send them to battle, the once that survive will be that much smarter, the once that die well survival of the fittest... And then what? How do we get the fighters e need, or the frigates or the tanks? How do we build up the logistics needed to support an expanding force? Who would be responsible for equipping us in a short notice? The US? What happens if there is a natural disaster? Do we start discussing how to organize a military unit to send there? How do you intent to train CSOR or JTF2 in short notice? While we are at it why not disband the Fire Department and try to build them up only when there is a fire? What are you talking about? Fires actually happen. When was the last war where we didn't create it? We make war, we export it. Edited June 9, 2012 by punked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.