Harper - The International Embarrassment Continues

[cybercoma]

the political left in Canada has gotten us into every single war or combat mission in Canadian history

The political left, namely the Liberals, also ran this country longer in the 20th century than any other party in a developed nation on this planet ran a country. They had 69 years of governments. It's hardly surprising that they would be at the helm when we had combat missions. How about you compare the number of combat missions each party engage in as a proportion of the number of years in power. Edited September 15, 2015 by cybercoma

[Derek 2.0]

The political left, namely the Liberals, also ran this country longer in the 20th century than any other party in a developed nation on this planet ran a country. They had 69 years of governments. It's hardly surprising that they would be at the helm when we had combat missions. How about you compare the number of combat missions each party engage in as a proportion of the number of years in power.

My post was in response to Squid’s confused statement that the political left understands the importance of military action in World affairs, well also being anti-war…….

In no way is it a criticism of such military actions on the part of Canadians, as far as I know, no major political figure from the “right” has opposed said actions when started by the “left”. Instead opposing policies, namely pre-war, from the political left that directly lead to numerous Canadian military disasters and the wanton death and injuring of Canadians in uniform, as a direct result of political policies of the “left”.

[Argus]

Most PCs are Liberals?

The ones who stuck with the PCs rather than going over Reform and then the Alliance were pretty liberal minded and are probably Liberals now.

[PIK]

The UN and peacekeeping is a joke. It does nothing but billions of dollars for what. Where is the UN right now with what is going on with refugees. Where are they. Where are the blue helmets rushing in to save the day. If the UN had any back bone, 100,000 troops should be in that area right now. With the equipment and mandate to end the suffering. But instead we have nothing,

[Derek 2.0]

The UN and peacekeeping is a joke. It does nothing but billions of dollars for what. Where is the UN right now with what is going on with refugees. Where are they. Where are the blue helmets rushing in to save the day. If the UN had any back bone, 100,000 troops should be in that area right now. With the equipment and mandate to end the suffering. But instead we have nothing,

The principle behind UN peacekeeping isn’t a joke, the joke is the romanticism associated with the political left in this country, which believes that by simply rattle-canning our equipment white and adorning blue berets, then interjecting ourselves between two hostile forces will return us to the geopolitical realities of the 1960s, 70s and 80s. That is the joke.

The truth is, such mythological realities ended with the fall of the Berlin wall. With the demise of the Soviet sphere of influence and the devolution of its once client states, so ended the notion that we can simply interject ourselves between two or more warring parties and achieve positive results. This is no more evident than with the failures associated with the various missions in the former Republic of Yugoslavia, which ultimately required military intervention to stop the ethnic genocide in the region.

The World today is a far more dangerous place, with belligerents that were once restrained by either the Western or Soviet spheres being replaced by “free agent” states and ideological movements (like ISIS) that wouldn’t be deterred by international law and the blue berets that would follow. As we’ve seen with various hostages taken (and killed) from NGOs and the international media, ISIS is not deterred by international convention, as such, lightly armed, ROE restricted Peacekeepers, would simply be further victims.

The World has changed. Going forward, military intervention in failed States won’t look like the fabled Peacekeeping missions of the past, where belligerents looked upon Peacekeepers as referees. Intervention going forward will look like Iraq and Afghanistan……which is why many won’t involve themselves.

[PIK]

The UN its self is the joke and the people that run it. Talk about letting the fox run the chicken coop.

[Derek 2.0]

The UN its self is the joke and the people that run it. Talk about letting the fox run the chicken coop.

How so? By all means explain........

[Argus]

How so? By all means explain........

How many times a year does the United Nations condemn Israel vs any other... heck, vs EVERY other nation in the world?

Most of the UN membership consists of dictatorships.

[Derek 2.0]

How many times a year does the United Nations condemn Israel vs any other... heck, vs EVERY other nation in the world?

Most of the UN membership consists of dictatorships.

So? Does that mean we have to adopt every UN Resolution, likewise support the policies of the majority?

[ironstone]

I'm pretty content with Stephen Harper as Prime Minister,if anything,I wish he would be more conservative.For the sake of comparison,the Premier of my home province of Ontario is a horrible leader.Kathleen Wynne is the one that is really embarrassing.

[Argus]

So? Does that mean we have to adopt every UN Resolution, likewise support the policies of the majority?

No, but an organization made up primarily of corrupt dictatorships is hardly one to be held aloft as the symbol for mankinds hopes of peace and law and justice, as so many on the Left seem to do.

[Army Guy]

I think Derek hit the nail on the head, in reference to his whole outlook on peacekeeping operations. His example of Yugoslavia is a perfect example of how the world has changed and how ineffective the UN peacekeeping operations have become and why they have become a toothless, meaningless waste of energy...Those countries involved had nothing to fear, in regards to keeping within inter national laws, or conventions....they also knew they had nothing to fear from the UN or it's troops on the ground, becuase it was them that set up those agreements, the conditions, the UN force structure, what wpns the UN could bring in, and how many, they wrote the rules for the entire game, so that if things did go bad the UN troops on the ground was in no position to influence the outcome, .....Not to mention the conditions that each contributing nation placed upon it's forces.....Yugo under the UN was not Canada's finest hour, our allieds refered to us as CAN'T BAT1, and CAN'T BAT 2....because our government at the time did not want it's military put into harms way in any way....It was not until NATO took over and started it's Peacemaking operations that things started to stabilize and fighting stopped.....

I served on the first mission to Yugo under Mckenzie, and it was frustrating when our mandate was to observe, report, take no action, in hopes of one day those responsible for those crimes will be brought to justice...And we wondered why those people who's lives depending on us to stop the war or protect them lost hope, and lost it quickly......

Only a very small percentage of those individuals have every been made to face justice.....I have not talked to one soldier that actually liked UN operations, because of the rules that forced Armed soldiers unable to stop war crimes from happening, observe, record, report.....UN HQ did not keep an operational HQ staffed with people that could make decisions, running 24 and 7 the night shift was staffed by junior staff members who could not make any decisions, whuch meant by the time one was made, the offence was long done and over, those responsible vanished into the wood work....And Yugo was not the first UN mission to go belly up, but it was one of the the last major operations.....

On a personal note Yugo was my last UN tour, i vowed never to go on another ever again, there has been plenty of opportunities, but i have declined them all, it was for me a dark period in my career, of all my tours i completed Yugo was the one i have the most trouble dealing with, that includes the 3 combat tours in Afghan. And it all stems from my training as a soldier, my morals and values, and not being able to stop harm from coming to innocent civilians, but only observing , recording, and reporting those crimes as they happened....

I don't know why Canadians have this passion for peacekeeping, they see it as honorable, doing the right thing....and at one time it may of worked....but not today...today it places our soldiers in harms way for nothing...nothing of any good any way...

[Peter F]

I was under the impression that UN peace-keeping missions were implemented when two-sides to a conflict want a third-party buffer force or group of observers to oversee a desired peace/cease-fire.

Obviously when the two sides or usually only one of the two sides has no desire for the agreement to continue then the peace-keeping operation will be

a complete waste of time. At that point its best to pull the boys and girls out.

I think we run into problems when we begin to think our peace-keeping ops should become peace imposing ops.

The UN is not a perfect organization and is not designed to impose itself on conflicts or even end conflicts but it will try to facilitate and end.

[ReeferMadness]

That's a good point. For peace keeping to succeed, there first needs to be peace to keep. Unless you have forces that are technologically and numerically vastly superior, you can't get between two sides that really want to fight.

[Army Guy]

Peter F:

Under perfect conditions sure, and that approach worked for some years, why because of the other leading nations often forced both parties to sit down and play nice, there would be serious consequences for not doing so. Do you think this worked in Yugo, where war crimes were often committed right in front of UN troops, who's UN mandate at the time, was only to observe, record and report.....To the UN which has the powers to do what exactly, impose sanctions.....all sides continued to conduct war crimes, up until NATO took over the mission, and used the threat of force to reign in the bad guys...and even then, they pushed the very limits, until NATO took action, such as bombing bad guys arty positions around many cities.....

The point being is UN peacekeeping operations have become a thing of the past, sending over a soldier to observe, report, record, that's what journalists do send them....for me it was being forced to watch something everyone knew was wrong, and not being able to do anything about it.....and risk my life to do it in the process....with no effect on the situation at all.....we could not help anyone, ask the dutch what it is like to have thousands of civilians under your care removed by force, by the bad guys, ask them if they thought it was worth it.....knowing all those men of military age where going to their deaths.....nothing romantic about UN Peacekeeping.....nothing the UN did over in Yugo accomplished anything.....except prolong the suffering.....

I never said peace making process was perfect, but it has solved more issues than peace keeping...which means more lives saved, the rebuilding process can start, and in time peace keeping operations could help stabilize those nations.

[Army Guy]

That's a good point. For peace keeping to succeed, there first needs to be peace to keep. Unless you have forces that are technologically and numerically vastly superior, you can't get between two sides that really want to fight.

It worked in Cyprus when the Canadian Airborne regt parachuted into the middle of the conflict......fighting both sides to a stand off....but then again it was the leading nations that told them, to stop or your membership in NATO , would expire, or the shipments of arms and wpns would be cut off.

For peace to succeed someone needs the leverage to end it....

[Derek 2.0]

I was under the impression that UN peace-keeping missions were implemented when two-sides to a conflict want a third-party buffer force or group of observers to oversee a desired peace/cease-fire.

Obviously when the two sides or usually only one of the two sides has no desire for the agreement to continue then the peace-keeping operation will be

a complete waste of time. At that point its best to pull the boys and girls out.

I think we run into problems when we begin to think our peace-keeping ops should become peace imposing ops.

The UN is not a perfect organization and is not designed to impose itself on conflicts or even end conflicts but it will try to facilitate and end.

Exactly, case in point, Rwanda........

[Derek 2.0]

That's a good point. For peace keeping to succeed, there first needs to be peace to keep. Unless you have forces that are technologically and numerically vastly superior, you can't get between two sides that really want to fight.

Sure you can, the police do it all the time, and like policing, UN Peacekeeping relied upon a presumption of infallibility and control, coupled with the notion that if you did/do injure or kill said infallible figures, though you might get away with it in the short term, the eventual retribution that would entail would be devastating to oneself.

This of course was all squandered once the UN failed to respond in a meaningful way when belligerents committed genocide (as mentioned by Army Guy) in front of UN forces, furthermore, capturing and killing UN Peacekeepers with no real consequence.

Hence the myth that is UN Peacekeeping.

[eyeball]

The World today is a far more dangerous place, with belligerents that were once restrained by either the Western or Soviet spheres being replaced by “free agent” states and ideological movements (like ISIS) that wouldn’t be deterred by international law and the blue berets that would follow.

Never mind that it's been policies dear to the political right that has directly lead to this fearful new world.

My post was in response to Squid’s confused statement that the political left understands the importance of military action in World affairs, well also being anti-war…….

In no way is it a criticism of such military actions on the part of Canadians, as far as I know, no major political figure from the “right” has opposed said actions when started by the “left”. Instead opposing policies, namely pre-war, from the political left that directly lead to numerous Canadian military disasters and the wanton death and injuring of Canadians in uniform, as a direct result of political policies of the “left”.

What the left is far better at understanding is what the consequences of the political right's policies will be, as evidenced by how successfully the left has predicted that the world would only become more dangerous, in the very manner that it has, as a result of following the right's prescriptions.

Now the future's so bright my shades will likely vaporize.

[eyeball]

I don't know why Canadians have this passion for peacekeeping, they see it as honorable, doing the right thing...

It probably stems from the noble image our government encouraged baby boomer Canadians to have of their country, especially when we were growing up in school. We should have run our education system more like a Klingon military prep school so we could have beaten that sense into the population.

...and at one time it may of worked....but not today...today it places our soldiers in harms way for nothing...nothing of any good any way...

It probably stopped working when our allies started doing things like knocking off democracies and had lefties known at the time I bet you they coulda and woulda told you where that would lead too.

[Derek 2.0]

Never mind that it's been policies dear to the political right that has directly lead to this fearful new world.

Are you suggesting the political left played no part?

What the left is far better at understanding is what the consequences of the political right's policies will be, as evidenced by how successfully the left has predicted that the world would only become more dangerous, in the very manner that it has, as a result of following the right's prescriptions.

Hardly. The political left is consumed by tendencies of failure, wrought by the belief that we can all just “get along”……The left’s failure to understand two truisms since the dawn of man, “Peace through strength” and “might makes right”, only guarantees continual bloodshed, brought on by an ignorant indifference coupled with the fallacy that is their vision of a Utopian World in which everyone shares their vaunted beliefs.

[eyeball]

Are you suggesting the political left played no part?

I'm saying conservatism was given way way to big a role.

[eyeball]

Hardly. The political left is consumed by tendencies of failure, wrought by the belief that we can all just “get along”……The left’s failure to understand two truisms since the dawn of man, “Peace through strength” and “might makes right”, only guarantees continual bloodshed, brought on by an ignorant indifference coupled with the fallacy that is their vision of a Utopian World in which everyone shares their vaunted beliefs.

Left-wingers are responsible for our species climbing down from the trees.

Your ilk stood in the way.

Edited September 18, 2015 by eyeball

[Derek 2.0]

Left-wingers are responsible for our species climbing down from the trees.

Your ilk stood in the way.

That might be true, but more likely, they were forced from the trees.........those that beat their swords to ploughshares, end up plowing for someone else.

[Peter F]

Sure you can, the police do it all the time, and like policing, UN Peacekeeping relied upon a presumption of infallibility and control, coupled with the notion that if you did/do injure or kill said infallible figures, though you might get away with it in the short term, the eventual retribution that would entail would be devastating to oneself.

This of course was all squandered once the UN failed to respond in a meaningful way when belligerents committed genocide (as mentioned by Army Guy) in front of UN forces, furthermore, capturing and killing UN Peacekeepers with no real consequence.

Hence the myth that is UN Peacekeeping.

What consequence should there have been? And were the UN the people to apply the consequence? Once the shooting started - it seems the shooting never really ended due to parties who had no intention of ending it - The Peace-keeping was over. To say that the UN failed at stopping genocide or failed

to impose a peace is true - but I would argue those things were never the Peace-keepers mandate - that is not what they were there for as evidenced by

the obvious fact that they were not equipped or supplied to the level of being able to impose a peace or even end slaughters.

It isn't the UN's peacekeeping thats a myth but UN peacemaking certainly is a myth.

Individual nations or perhaps groups of nations can certainly move in and impose a peace - as has happened many times in the past - but those nations

are also accepting of the fact that by doing so they too will become part of the conflict. NATO vs Serbia for example. No UN necessary for that although it was nice (but certainly not necessary) to have the UN seal of approval.