Canadians Want Canada in Darfur

[southerncomfort]

So, Canadians want us to send troops to Darfur Islam's killing fields, even tho Sudan's government doesn't want us there. Why is it okay to put our troops in harms way there even tho we could become targets of Islamist extremists. Bet if the U.S. wanted us to go, Canadians would think differently. LOL

Two-thirds of Canadians want the government to take the lead on the international stage to end the four years of carnage in Darfur, says a new poll.

A slim majority -- 52 per cent -- also want Canada to contribute troops to a United Nations peacekeeping force to stop the "genocide," says the Pollara survey for the Toronto-based Mosaic Institute, provided exclusively to the Citizen.

The new poll will likely give ammunition to critics of the Harper Conservatives who accuse the government of single-mindedly focusing its foreign policy on the military mission in Afghanistan. The Conservative government has said with the 2,500 troops in Afghanistan, it is stretched too thin to make a military contribution to an international force for Darfur.

The United Nations wants to deploy 20,000 peacekeepers to Darfur, but has been stonewalled by the Sudanese government in Khartoum.

read more here

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/s...c1-afe56eb27e21

[Wilber]

Bet if the U.S. wanted us to go, Canadians would think differently. LOL

You know it.

[jdobbin]

Bet if the U.S. wanted us to go, Canadians would think differently. LOL

You know it.

I believe Bush does support getting involved but has no resources to do so. He also has no Congressional support to do so. He is the one who has called what has happening "genocide."

[kimmy]

I'm not exactly clear on the difference between genocide and ethnic cleansing, but whichever it is, what's going on in Darfur is not good.

This issue has somewhat vanished off the radar since David Kilgour retired from Parliament, which is unfortunate.

It is also somewhat unfortunate if people make their decisions based on

So, Canadians want us to send troops to Darfur Islam's killing fields, even tho Sudan's government doesn't want us there.

Sudan's government doesn't want us there because Sudan's government is a silent partner in the tragedy going on. Sudanese government is not just sitting idly by as the Janjaweed milia engages in a campaign of slaughter and terror against the black majority in the region, the Sudanese government is not just supplying the militias with weapons, the Sudanese government is now an active participant.

Why is it okay to put our troops in harms way there even tho we could become targets of Islamist extremists. Bet if the U.S. wanted us to go, Canadians would think differently. LOL

I believe that Canadians want our armed forces to participate in missions that advance the cause of justice and goodness.

This is a situation where hundreds of thousands of people have been killed and millions have been displaced from their homes for the crime of being in the wrong ethnic group. If this isn't the kind of situation Canada should intervene in, then we don't have any business being on the world stage.

It would be a big disappointment to me if Canadians are intimidated by the idea that militant Islamists might get mad.

-k

[Catchme]

Another c- on spin and editing, you supporters of Harper just never seem to realize people do read your links.

The new poll will likely give ammunition to critics of the Harper Conservatives who accuse the government of single-mindedly focusing its foreign policy on the military mission in Afghanistan. The Conservative government has said with the 2,500 troops in Afghanistan, it is stretched too thin to make a military contribution to an international force for Darfur.

There is no point to our being in Afghanistan, our military, and others in the coalition are the ones killings innocent civilians. Unlike Darfur.

And kimmy you get a F-, on the attempt at a smear that makes no sense at all, if Canadians were 'intimidated' by any 'militant Islamists' "who may get mad", they would not be overwhelmingly supporting assitance now would they?

It has only vanished off the radar to the Harper et al crowd, quite obviously, and who hate the UN. It is quite evident the rest of Canadians have been all for helping while Harper and the CPC ignore it..

[Argus]

Canadians are overwhelmingly ignorant. They know nothing about Darfur (just as they know nothing about Afghanistan) and what getting involved would cost, and as soon as Canadian soldiers started having to shoot people and get blown up they'd cringe and demand they be withdrawn.

[scribblet]

Canadians are overwhelmingly ignorant. They know nothing about Darfur (just as they know nothing about Afghanistan) and what getting involved would cost, and as soon as Canadian soldiers started having to shoot people and get blown up they'd cringe and demand they be withdrawn.

That would be my take on it too. Darfur would not be the 'traditional' type of peacekeeping role these Canadians think it will be, and not only that the NDP want Canada to take a lead role.

[kimmy]

If Jack Layton is making a push for Canadian involvement in a Darfur mission, then I support him. It's the right thing to do.

I suspect that Taliban Jack will turn into Janjawid Jack pretty quickly if the mission requires combat against brown people, however.

Fighting the Taliban is the right thing to do as well. If participating in Darfur means jeopardizing the mission in Afghanistan, then I'm not sure which I'd choose.

There is no point to our being in Afghanistan, our military, and others in the coalition are the ones killings innocent civilians. Unlike Darfur.

I take strong exception to this comment.

While Canadian troops and other coalition soldiers have certainly killed civilians by mistake or accident, that pales in comparison to the carnage inflicted on Afghanis by the Taliban militants.

A considerable portion of the civilian casualties result from the Taliban use of bombs in areas where there is heavy civilian traffic. A considerable portion of the remaining civilian casualties result from deliberate insurgent attacks on civilian targets.

And kimmy you get a F-, on the attempt at a smear that makes no sense at all, if Canadians were 'intimidated' by any 'militant Islamists' "who may get mad", they would not be overwhelmingly supporting assitance now would they?

That comment was directed at Southerncomfort who did indeed seem to be intimidated by the possibility that acting in Darfur will make us targets of militant Islamists.

-k

[B. Max]

I suspect that Taliban Jack will turn into Janjawid Jack pretty quickly if the mission requires combat against brown people, however.

Taliban jack and his ilk are more likely to think that the US is the enemy, and I suspect lots of them secretly entertain thoughts in the back of their mind about invading the US.

[scribblet]

I suspect that Taliban Jack will turn into Janjawid Jack pretty quickly if the mission requires combat against brown people, however.

Taliban jack and his ilk are more likely to think that the US is the enemy, and I suspect lots of them secretly entertain thoughts in the back of their mind about invading the US.

Yeah, they are after the oil and those nasty Dominionists LOL

[Catchme]

If Jack Layton is making a push for Canadian involvement in a Darfur mission, then I support him. It's the right thing to do.

I suspect that Taliban Jack will turn into Janjawid Jack pretty quickly if the mission requires combat against brown people, however.

-k

funny kimmy how things change in just 1 short year heh?

Last year when you people were busy trying to slander Jack with that title, for suggesting that Canada negotiate with the Taliban, you would not know a year later that Jack would become the voice of reason ahead of the curve, and that you all would look like fools, eh.

It was just last week that Karzi stated that negotiations with the Taliban must start, to stop the killing of civlians.

And we see how far the Harper government has moved on that, not a word out their mouths on Karzi's request.

In the meantime, 30 or more innocent civlians were killed yesterday.

[Alexandra]

Last year when you people were busy trying to slander Jack with that title, for suggesting that Canada negotiate with the Taliban, you would not know a year later that Jack would become the voice of reason ahead of the curve, and that you all would look like fools, eh.

It was just last week that Karzi stated that negotiations with the Taliban must start, to stop the killing of civlians

Jack Layton was actually talking about the discussions between the tribal leaders of the duly elected government in Kabul a couple of years or so ago. These discussions about talking with the Afghani Taliban (excluding all foreign arab insurgents, etc.) by the Kabul government have been going on since the first national election. Layton was late to that party, as usual.

The only fool(s) appears to be Taliban Jack, who whipped his caucus to vote with the Conservative government to defeat the motion by the Libs and Bloc to withdraw the combat troops in 2009! How very brilliant was that? Right. Jack's rationale? It's all or nothing.

These discussions by Karzai's government have nothing to do with any of the NATO countries involved in Afghanistan's conflict so the harping on Harper about not jumping in and demanding Taliban Jack be authorized to whip those Taliban Mullahs into agreeing to a sit down over a pot of tea to discuss how to settle this little conflict is, as usual, an exercise in ~babble~

`

[Catchme]

Good spin alexandra, but certainly inaccurate.

Karzi just asked last week to have negotiations, for the first time.

[Alexandra]

Jack Layton was actually talking about the discussions between the tribal leaders of the duly elected government in Kabul a couple of years or so ago. These discussions about talking with the Afghani Taliban (excluding all foreign arab insurgents, etc.) by the Kabul government have been going on since the first national election. Layton was late to that party, as usual.

I don't see Karzai's name mentioned.

Last year when you people were busy trying to slander Jack with that title, for suggesting that Canada negotiate with the Taliban, you would not know a year later that Jack would become the voice of reason ahead of the curve, and that you all would look like fools, eh

You are contradicting yourself, again. First it was last year Taliban Jack was suggesting negotiating and now it is only last week the subject arose by Karzai? If Karzai's government has been discussing this topic for a few years are you saying Karzai is not privy to the discussions by his own government?

It is also noted you RitRem have failed to 'spin' the following:

The only fool(s) appears to be Taliban Jack, who whipped his caucus to vote with the Conservative government to defeat the motion by the Libs and Bloc to withdraw the combat troops in 2009! How very brilliant. Jack's rationale? It's all or nothing.

`

[scribblet]

I believe that Canadians want our armed forces to participate in missions that advance the cause of justice and goodness.

This is a situation where hundreds of thousands of people have been killed and millions have been displaced from their homes for the crime of being in the wrong ethnic group. If this isn't the kind of situation Canada should intervene in, then we don't have any business being on the world stage.

It would be a big disappointment to me if Canadians are intimidated by the idea that militant Islamists might get mad.

-k

I think they are allready intimidated, we really don't like to offend anyone, not even the radical genocidal types. Besides, as soon as our soldiers are hurt or killed, they'll want to pull out. Not that I want to see our soldiers dying, I don't, but they will be.

Besides, the proposed UN peacekeeping force is no guarantee that they will be able to bring about peace and keep it. They would need a much larger force and use different rules of engagement.

[Keepitsimple]

As usual with these polls, it's all in how you ask the question.....and as someone has already pointed out, Canadians in general know nothing about Darfur - I'll bet 90% would not know what country Darfur was in. In any event, it would be enlightening to know what "taking the lead" actually means. After all, as the article says, the UN wants to put 20,000 peace-keepers in Darfur (Sudan) but their government does not want them there. So what does "taking the lead" mean. Does it mean the UN is incompetent and Canada should tell Sudan: "We don't care if you don't want us there - we're coming"? To people who know nothing of Darfur, why wouldn't they answer "yes" to end 4 years of carnage?

By the way, this polll was sponsored by the Mosaic Institute. Who? you say. They are a very new "Think Tank" that has caught the eye of the Toronto Star. I'm not trying to be overly critical but wouldn't it be a good idea for rookie Think Tanks to earn their stripes for a few years before they get national exposure. In an article by Carol Goar of the Star, she mentions that the Institute is not even scheduled for formal launch until this fall. I guess the Star couldn't resist taking another swipe at Harper.

The institute won't have its official launch until the fall, but its website, www.mosaicinstitute.ca, is up and

running.

Link to Star article on Mosaic: http://www.mosaicinstitute.ca/pdf/Globaliz...Canadianway.pdf

Link to Mosaic Institute: http://www.mosaicinstitute.ca/index.html

[M.Dancer]

Some how I think Canadian soldiers figyting and killing black africans will be less palatable than fighting anbd killing afghans.....

I don't think most people truly undrstand what this Darfur mission would entail.

[Army Guy]

Karzi just asked last week to have negotiations, for the first time.

Who told you that, perhaps you can provide a source....your pretty quick on telling everyone they are spinning the topic at hand. when you have done nothing to prove them wrong nor have you provided any ref or sources....Your the Queen of spin....in fact i get dizzy just reading all your posts...

neg

There is no point to our being in Afghanistan, our military, and others in the coalition are the ones killings innocent civilians. Unlike Darfur

Anyone that thinks that anything is going to be different in Darfur has not done any research into the Dafur problem. And like Afgan will be screaming thier bloody heads off "bring our troops home" but not of course until we have lost 40 or 50 good soldiers....And once again the soldiers will by screaming give us the time to complete our jobs .....and once again we will be reminded who we work for, and who's tax dollars we are spending and it's an unwinniable mission.... And why so armchair critics can feel good about atleast we tried... I say get off your armchair and sign your ass up, want to make a difference then put on some boots and join me on the tarmac when we carry our comrads to the herc in a metal coffin...if you can't do that then stop opening your gobs about something you ethier refuse to do any research on, or know anything about...

And kimmy you get a F-, on the attempt at a smear that makes no sense at all, if Canadians were 'intimidated' by any 'militant Islamists' "who may get mad", they would not be overwhelmingly supporting assitance now would they?

As it is already been mentioned on this forum most canadians could not find Darfur on a map drawn on thier arse ....they agree on darfur because they want anything but Afgan...

[Michael Bluth]

Good post AG. That's the toughest thing for the lefties to understand. War involves casualties. It involves losses. It really sickens me that the people who want us to commit to Darfur are the ones who want us out of Afghanistan.

My feeling is, correct me if I am wrong, that we would be stretched logistically to commit to Darfur.

Never mind the nagabobs who would gripe about us being there if we went in.

Anyone that thinks that anything is going to be different in Darfur has not done any research into the Dafur problem. And like Afgan will be screaming thier bloody heads off "bring our troops home" but not of course until we have lost 40 or 50 good soldiers....And once again the soldiers will by screaming give us the time to complete our jobs .....and once again we will be reminded who we work for, and who's tax dollars we are spending and it's an unwinniable mission.... And why so armchair critics can feel good about atleast we tried... I say get off your armchair and sign your ass up, want to make a difference then put on some boots and join me on the tarmac when we carry our comrads to the herc in a metal coffin...if you can't do that then stop opening your gobs about something you ethier refuse to do any research on, or know anything about...

[Army Guy]

My feeling is, correct me if I am wrong, that we would be stretched logistically to commit to Darfur.

Stretched beyond belief.

[Army Guy]

Perhaps Canadian should do some research before we commit to another mission.

Darfur

[Keepitsimple]

Perhaps Canadian should do some research before we commit to another mission.

Darfur

AG - thanks. Finally some common sense. I'd appreciate if you could publish snippets from this article as a new topic - people need to understand the realities of "Peacekeeping". I'd do it myself but I don't want to steal your thunder.

[Shakeyhands]

seems after reading that article that the prospect of a UN mission or even a NATO mission is totally dismissed as being ineffective. The part stating it "would be like the cops in an old heist movie, having to stop at the border and watch the bad guys disappear over the horizon." is particularily laughable because if there was a buffer between the border and the refugees they couldn't "harass refugees there" which we all know means murder.

seems to me that is better use of our troops than Afghanistan is.

[M.Dancer]

Hmmmm......how about Egypt, Morroco, Zimbawe, South Africa, Zaire send troops top Afganistan and we go to Africa.

....but will Canndians feel better about shooting negros than shooting Caucasians?

[Shakeyhands]

Hmmmm......how about Egypt, Morroco, Zimbawe, South Africa, Zaire send troops top Afganistan and we go to Africa.

....but will Canndians feel better about shooting negros than shooting Caucasians?

I think Canadians would rather have their sons and daughters assigned to a place where they can make a real difference in defending defensless people, if thats Afghanistan or Darfur it doesn't make a difference. In my opinion the atrocities (including the deaths of hundreds of thousands) happening in Darfur far outway the chasing of shadowy Taliban in Afghanistan