More Fiscal Incompetence from the Conservatives

[Signals.Cpl]

What are you talking about? Fires actually happen. When was the last war where we didn't create it?

Is that your argument? I don't know of any wars Canada has "created" but I love your argument as childish as it is...

[punked]

Is that your argument? I don't know of any wars Canada has "created" but I love your argument as childish as it is...

Your argument is just as bad. There is a large Island right next to us with all the same resources we have and yet no military.

[Signals.Cpl]

Your argument is just as bad. There is a large Island right next to us with all the same resources we have and yet no military.

Im still waiting on the source as to how Iceland has "all the same resources we have".

[waldo]

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...

schooled you? Why... yes, I did - big time! Your fabrications don't stand up to the official record. I posted you a link to a previous MLW post that provided the official OAU report on Rwanda. Let me bring that directly in for you to match your fabrications up against the official record:

... I expect as you are aware, or if I might, should be aware, the

official OAU report

does not match the posted fabrications. It was the US/Allbright that did all in its power to undermine the effectiveness of the UN deployment from the very start. Most categorically, to the specific APC reference, Americans agreed to the

UN request

to provide the APCs... and then both the U.S. government and Pentagon proceeded to dither about price, while genocide ensued - nothing more, nothing less. Clinton in a self-serving manner, years later, spoke to his personal failures in not responding urgently and forcefully... claiming not to realize the urgency, the severity - ya, sure!

no fixation - as I stated, my very pointed and focused attention was another MLW members false impressions and implications levied against Canadian Lieutenent-General Romeo Dallaire, notwithstanding broader aspersion toward Canada, Chretien and Canadian Force representation within the UN Rwanda forces... false impressions and implications specifically related to the referenced 50 APC. There is certainly blame to go all around... there is also, according to the

official OAU report

, particular blame to be attached to the U.S., at large, and particularly related to the referenced 50 APC. That is not, as you say, my fixation... that is me addressing statements of fact and consensus understanding.

For the next six weeks, as the carnage continued, the UN dithered in organizing any kind of response to the ongoing tragedy.

The Americans, led by US Ambassador Madeleine Albright, played the key role in blocking more expeditious action by the UN.

On May 17, the Security Council finally authorized an expanded UNAMIR II to consist of 5,500 personnel. But there is perhaps no distance greater on earth than the one between the Security Council chambers and the outside world.

Once the decision to expand was finally made, as we will soon show in detail, the Pentagon somehow required an additional seven weeks just to negotiate a contract for delivering armed personnel carriers to the field; evidently it proved difficult to arrange the desired terms for “maintenance and spare parts.”

When the genocide ended in mid-July with the final RPF victory, not a single additional UN soldier had landed in Kigali.

[Signals.Cpl]

schooled you? Why... yes, I did - big time! Your fabrications don't stand up to the official record. I posted you a link to a previous MLW post that provided the official OAU report on Rwanda. Let me bring that directly in for you to match your fabrications up against the official record:

[/indent]

Great, APCs... you do realize that the APCs would have done nothing to prevent the genocide? APC are nothing but vehicles. There was the Security council, and then there was the world even if the SC had voted no one was willing to field any troops except for the previously mentioned nations who had soldiers of questionable quality. The US shares blame in events of 1994 just lie every other nations including Canada, you can pull the anti-American bull and put the blame squarely on them but the end of the day the world failed, the UN failed, and it failed because it was designed and destined to fail.

[waldo]

Great, APCs... you do realize that the APCs would have done nothing to prevent the genocide? APC are nothing but vehicles. There was the Security council, and then there was the world even if the SC had voted no one was willing to field any troops except for the previously mentioned nations who had soldiers of questionable quality. The US shares blame in events of 1994 just lie every other nations including Canada, you can pull the anti-American bull and put the blame squarely on them but the end of the day the world failed, the UN failed, and it failed because it was designed and destined to fail.

your fabrications don't stand up to the official OAU report... I said there were multiple causes with blame attachment - I said the principal cause lies in the delaying actions/intervention of the U.S.... regardless of your fabrications or want to play the anti-American card.

[Signals.Cpl]

your fabrications don't stand up to the official OAU report... I said there were multiple causes with blame attachment - I said the principal cause lies in the delaying actions/intervention of the U.S.... regardless of your fabrications or want to play the anti-American card.

Then answer this question, how would 10,100,1,000 or 1,000,000 APCs do anything to stop the Genocide if UNAMIR had only 270 soldiers?

The force commander who happened to be Canadian stated that the APCs were required to be effective in the field not prevent the Genocide, he needed more troops for that. The UN looked for donors to provide the APCs and ONLY the US came forward with an offer at which point they stopped looking. UNAMIR getting the APCs would have done nothing in the prevention of the Genocide, rather it would have only assisted in the movements of the few soldiers that remained.

[Signals.Cpl]

your fabrications don't stand up to the official OAU report... I said there were multiple causes with blame attachment - I said the principal cause lies in the delaying actions/intervention of the U.S.... regardless of your fabrications or want to play the anti-American card.

Responsibility for the failure to halt the 1994 genocide in Rwanda lies with the UN system, members of the UN Security Council -- the US and UK in particular -- and other UN member states, according to the report of an independent inquiry made public at UN headquarters in New York on 16 December.

http://www.un.org/en/africarenewal/subjindx/134peac2.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/568566.stm

And by far my favourite, the UN putting the Rwandan government in the SC and thereby in the decision making body that was meant to stop the genocide that the Rwandan Government was committing at that time. The FC sends intel to the SC telling them that the Rwandan government and militia's are storing illegal weapons and the SC refuses to act on the intel until the Rwandans have the chance to remove said weapons.

[bush_cheney2004]

....The force commander who happened to be Canadian stated that the APCs were required to be effective in the field not prevent the Genocide, he needed more troops for that. The UN looked for donors to provide the APCs and ONLY the US came forward with an offer at which point they stopped looking. UNAMIR getting the APCs would have done nothing in the prevention of the Genocide, rather it would have only assisted in the movements of the few soldiers that remained.

More significantly, only the USA had readily available heavy airlift needed to deploy 50 APCs in time anyway. This gap would be emphasized again to Canadians when trying to deploy forces and equipment to Afghanistan or DART after a tsunami in the Pacific. Made for an easy sale of Boeing CF-177's after the culpable Liberal Party of Canada was turfed. Small revenge for dead Rwandans.

[waldo]

Then answer this question, how would 10,100,1,000 or 1,000,000 APCs do anything to stop the Genocide if UNAMIR had only 270 soldiers?

another distraction on your part... the shiny APC reference caught your eye and you proceed to distract away. The provided link, (which, clearly, you couldn't be bothered to follow), spoke to the significance/bearing of the APC. It was only a part of the lesser discussion because another MLW member decried, "why didn't Canada send our own" in response to the request from Canadian Lieutenent-General Romeo Dallaire, Force Commander for the UN Rwanda peacekeeping mission. To which I responded to highlight that the U.S. had provided a commitment to supply those 50 APCs... and then proceeded to dither.

you, as the original poster did, are confusing the authority of Canada versus the UN in that circumstance. The issue is Canadian Lieutenent-General Romeo Dallaire, Force Commander for the UN Rwanda peacekeeping mission, was quite adamant that he felt the 50 APC were the required logistical support element needed to stop the killing. The U.S. agreed to provide the APC... and then didn't provide them... until it was too late (see Pentagon/U.S. government dithering/nickel & dimming).

[bush_cheney2004]

It was only a part of the lesser discussion because another MLW member decried, "why didn't Canada send our own" in response to the request from Canadian Lieutenent-General Romeo Dallaire, Force Commander for the UN Rwanda peacekeeping mission. To which I responded to highlight that the U.S. had provided a commitment to supply those 50 APCs... and then proceeded to dither.

Still, the question goes unanswered. If the "US dithered", why didn't Canada send its own APCs? Wait...we already know why.

[waldo]

And by far my favourite, the UN putting the Rwandan government in the SC and thereby in the decision making body that was meant to stop the genocide that the Rwandan Government was committing at that time. The FC sends intel to the SC telling them that the Rwandan government and militia's are storing illegal weapons and the SC refuses to act on the intel until the Rwandans have the chance to remove said weapons.

yes, you continue to beak-off about the "useless UN"... weren't you the guy who needed to be schooled to understand just how the Security Council works vis-a-vis the permanent members/veto! I'll roust that post up for you... if you'd like.

if it gives you solace to ignore the roles/actions of key UN (SC) members, in order to lambaste the UN proper, then have at er! The UN is only... will ever only be... as relevant and successful as it's participating member countries are, particularly SC member countries are, in separating their singular self-interests from the greater whole.

I do believe I've challenged you in the past to step-up and provide an alternative working body to the UN, or how one would be realized.

[Signals.Cpl]

yes, you continue to beak-off about the "useless UN"... weren't you the guy who needed to be schooled to understand just how the Security Council works vis-a-vis the permanent members/veto! I'll roust that post up for you... if you'd like.

if it gives you solace to ignore the roles/actions of key UN (SC) members, in order to lambaste the UN proper, then have at er! The UN is only... will ever only be... as relevant and successful as it's participating member countries are, particularly SC member countries are, in separating their singular self-interests from the greater whole.

I do believe I've challenged you in the past to step-up and provide an alternative working body to the UN, or how one would be realized.

Please do.

[waldo]

Please do.

ahhh yes, good times recall! Pardon the momentary derail... I'm sure you won't want to extend with additional posts and further your embarrassment! In any case... what would Russia veto? Veto a SC ruling against accepting the Russian claim?

why the straw

man

men? Again, your boogeyman isn't cooperating with you... Russia is working within the international framework.

He doesn't have an answer, his entire argument as to why Canada should not worry about Russia taking a very active role on our territory is that the ICJ will protect us. When it was proven that the ICJ cannot do anything as the final say lays in the SC and Russia has a seat there, whatever happens Russia is free to act as it wants. And that is precisely why the UN is such an abysmal failure as a world organization.

what's the point of answering your fabricated strawman BS? It's really a shame Russia isn't playing into your fabricated boogeyman scenario, hey? Your "reality" ignores everything Russia is actively doing to align with international law, while at the same time playing out your agenda that presumes upon a UN ruling going against Russia, Russia moving the dispute to the World Court, the World Court ruling against Russia, Russia taking the World Court decision back to UN... and then... UN SC members ruling against "accepting the Russia claim"... and then Russia leveraging it's UN SC veto to... to veto... what?

[Signals.Cpl]

ahhh yes, good times recall! Pardon the momentary derail... I'm sure you won't want to extend with additional posts and further your embarrassment! In any case... what would Russia veto? Veto a SC ruling against accepting the Russian claim?

Nope, see an ICJ ruling is final, the only means of appeal is to go to the SC and ask for action from the SC. Now lets assume that its Canada and Russia over a piece of land in the Arctic, if the Russians start developing a piece of land that is claimed by both sides Canada can go to the ICJ, and the ICJ will rule on the subject. Should the ruling go against Canada we cannot bring it back to the ICJ until we have new evidence to present that might change the ruling. But should the ICJ rule in favour of Canada, Russia can continue occupying the contested land and our only avenue is to request the SC to intervene...now care to guess who has veto power in the SC? This means that we can have 14/15 voting for us and only Russia voting against a resolution to pass and the resolution does not pass... Care to explain where I got it wrong?

[waldo]

Care to explain where I got it wrong?

whatever nonsense you just fabricated has/had no bearing on what was discussed. Is there a reason you just can't address anything directly? Rather than continue your idiocy, just answer the question posed to you - that would be the question you ignored the first go around... and the question you now, once again, refused to answer. In the actual discussion... not your new fabricated nonsense, just what would the Russians be vetoing? Just answer the question. Don't deflect to some other 'whatever scenario' you now want to distract around... stay with the discussion and answer the related, the relevant, question. Just answer it!

what's the point of answering your fabricated strawman BS? It's really a shame Russia isn't playing into your fabricated boogeyman scenario, hey? Your "reality" ignores everything Russia is actively doing to align with international law, while at the same time playing out your agenda that presumes upon a UN ruling going against Russia, Russia moving the dispute to the World Court, the World Court ruling against Russia, Russia taking the World Court decision back to UN... and then... UN SC members ruling against "accepting the Russia claim"...

and then Russia leveraging it's UN SC veto to... to veto... what?

[Battletoads]

In WHOS name? Canadians dont even want them over there. They arent doing jack shit in my name, theyre just wasting my money on crap that doesnt even make us safer or benefit us in any way shape or form.

Well that's your opinion, but I feel much safer knowing our brave men and women are oversees gunning down brown people who likely couldn't spot Canada on a map.

/sarcasm

[Guest Derek L]

So vote NDP? K will do.

No Defence Policy? The same party that also supported the Libyan mission and I seem to remember the late Mr Layton wanting action on Darfur.

And to clarify, I’ve never spoken out against foreign action in principle just in practice.

[Guest Derek L]

This is one of the most baffling comments I've seen in awhile, topped only by MLW poster betsy's comment that women do not have sovereignty over their own bodies.

What does DoD mean? We don't have one.

[Guest Derek L]

another distraction on your part... the shiny APC reference caught your eye and you proceed to distract away. The provided link, (which, clearly, you couldn't be bothered to follow), spoke to the significance/bearing of the APC. It was only a part of the lesser discussion because another MLW member decried, "why didn't Canada send our own" in response to the request from Canadian Lieutenent-General Romeo Dallaire, Force Commander for the UN Rwanda peacekeeping mission. To which I responded to highlight that the U.S. had provided a commitment to supply those 50 APCs... and then proceeded to dither.

Indeed, still waiting for why we didn't send our own?

[cybercoma]

What does DoD mean? We don't have one.

It's the DND. Thanks for your insightful contribution.

[Signals.Cpl]

whatever nonsense you just fabricated has/had no bearing on what was discussed. Is there a reason you just can't address anything directly? Rather than continue your idiocy, just answer the question posed to you - that would be the question you ignored the first go around... and the question you now, once again, refused to answer. In the actual discussion... not your new fabricated nonsense, just what would the Russians be vetoing? Just answer the question. Don't deflect to some other 'whatever scenario' you now want to distract around... stay with the discussion and answer the related, the relevant, question. Just answer it!

The UN is irrelevant because there are at least 5 nations that are above the "law" I can explain it to you slower, smaller words or in a different language but I don't think you will grasp the concept. Those claims that the Russians have in the arctic? They could send in their miners and we would just sit on our asses and do nothing because they don't have to abide by the Ruling of the ICJ because the final yay or nay rests in their hands. If we ever had a dispute with either Russia or the US the ICJ would be nothing but a lame duck whose ruling will be irrelevant.

A very good example of the "usefulness" of the ICJ and the UN in general is The Republic of Nicaragua v. The United States of America in 1984 ICJ case where the US lost out to Nicaragua, eventually it made its way up to the SC and the US Veto's. There are 5 countries that will ALWAYS get their way if it was important to them.

[Guest Derek L]

It's the DND. Thanks for your insightful contribution.

No problem, I don’t mind helping out you CCF members…..

[waldo]

whatever nonsense you just fabricated has/had no bearing on what was discussed. Is there a reason you just can't address anything directly? Rather than continue your idiocy, just answer the question posed to you - that would be the question you ignored the first go around... and the question you now, once again, refused to answer. In the actual discussion... not your new fabricated nonsense, just what would the Russians be vetoing? Just answer the question. Don't deflect to some other 'whatever scenario' you now want to distract around... stay with the discussion and answer the related, the relevant, question. Just answer it!

The UN is irrelevant because there are at least 5 nations that are above the "law" I can explain it to you slower, smaller words or in a different language but I don't think you will grasp the concept. Those claims that the Russians have in the arctic? They could send in their miners and we would just sit on our asses and do nothing because they don't have to abide by the Ruling of the ICJ because the final yay or nay rests in their hands. If we ever had a dispute with either Russia or the US the ICJ would be nothing but a lame duck whose ruling will be irrelevant.

and again... you simply can't answer a simple question put to you. In one of your earlier flights-to-fancy, I was quite willing to lay out your farcical scenario for you... the one that had you bound and determined to ignore everything Russia, at great expense/time to itself, is currently doing to align with international law... while at the same time extending upon your boogeyman fears of Russia and, for good measure, had you taking a swipe at your favourite UN target.

what's the point of answering your fabricated strawman BS? It's really a shame Russia isn't playing into your fabricated boogeyman scenario, hey? Your "reality" ignores everything Russia is actively doing to align with international law, while at the same time playing out your agenda that presumes upon a UN ruling going against Russia, Russia moving the dispute to the World Court, the World Court ruling against Russia, Russia taking the World Court decision back to UN... and then... UN SC members ruling against "accepting the Russia claim"...

and then Russia leveraging it's UN SC veto to... to veto... what?

as I said, Russia just isn't playing into your trumped up boogeyman scenario: not only is Russia most transparent in announcing its current efforts in pursuit of building a scientifically founded case to support its Arctic aspirations, Russia formally announced it's intention to bring it's case forward to have the UN rule upon it. But of course, you trot out the SC permanent members veto card - your boogeyman 'ace-in-the-whole'... which, of course, shows your fabrication has no barriers! The whole point of that little exercise was to get you to see the idiocy of your scenario and just how a, ultimately, veto play made absolutely no sense - in that scenario of yours... not another new one you want to fabricate and play out while conveniently ignoring this one.

so, again, I quite willingly laid out your idiotic boogeyman scenario, the one that gave you your convenient UN slag. The idiotic scenario that presumes upon a UN ruling going against Russia, Russia moving the dispute to the World Court, the World Court ruling against Russia, Russia taking the World Court decision back to UN... and then... UN SC members ruling against "accepting the Russian claim"... and then Russia leveraging it's UN SC veto to... to veto... what? The question you can't/won't answer, because you know it shows just how ridiculous your fabrications run and the lengths to which you'll take them. If... if... everything lined up to feed into your ultimate Russian SC permanent member veto play, it would mean what? That Russia would veto the fact that international law won't recognize its Arctic aspiration claim? Would your imaginary Russian veto suddenly turn international law around to recognize a Russian Arctic claim?

obviously, you have multiple beefs with the UN... I suggest you get in line! In any case, sorry to burst your boogeyman-bubble on this one; on this particular fabrication of yours.

[Signals.Cpl]

and again... you simply can't answer a simple question put to you. In one of your earlier flights-to-fancy, I was quite willing to lay out your farcical scenario for you... the one that had you bound and determined to ignore everything Russia, at great expense/time to itself, is currently doing to align with international law... while at the same time extending upon your boogeyman fears of Russia and, for good measure, had you taking a swipe at your favourite UN target.

as I said, Russia just isn't playing into your trumped up boogeyman scenario: not only is Russia most transparent in announcing its current efforts in pursuit of building a scientifically founded case to support its Arctic aspirations, Russia formally announced it's intention to bring it's case forward to have the UN rule upon it. But of course, you trot out the SC permanent members veto card - your boogeyman 'ace-in-the-whole'... which, of course, shows your fabrication has no barriers! The whole point of that little exercise was to get you to see the idiocy of your scenario and just how a, ultimately, veto play made absolutely no sense - in that scenario of yours... not another new one you want to fabricate and play out while conveniently ignoring this one.

so, again, I quite willingly laid out your idiotic boogeyman scenario, the one that gave you your convenient UN slag. The idiotic scenario that presumes upon a UN ruling going against Russia, Russia moving the dispute to the World Court, the World Court ruling against Russia, Russia taking the World Court decision back to UN... and then... UN SC members ruling against "accepting the Russian claim"... and then Russia leveraging it's UN SC veto to... to veto... what? The question you can't/won't answer, because you know it shows just how ridiculous your fabrications run and the lengths to which you'll take them. If... if... everything lined up to feed into your ultimate Russian SC permanent member veto play, it would mean what? That Russia would veto the fact that international law won't recognize its Arctic aspiration claim? Would your imaginary Russian veto suddenly turn international law around to recognize a Russian Arctic claim?

obviously, you have multiple beefs with the UN... I suggest you get in line! In any case, sorry to burst your boogeyman-bubble on this one; on this particular fabrication of yours.

The Republic of Nicaragua v. The United States of America in 1984 ICJ case