Canadians Want Canada in Darfur

[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?

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

I think the parents of Canadians serving are proud of their sons and daughters no matter where they are serving. But barring some magical deployment wizard...doing something is better than doing notrhing at all.

On the otherhand, what africa really needs is some colonial intervention....worked wonders the last time....perhaps the EyeTies are available.....?

[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

I think the parents of Canadians serving are proud of their sons and daughters no matter where they are serving. But barring some magical deployment wizard...doing something is better than doing notrhing at all.

On the otherhand, what africa really needs is some colonial intervention....worked wonders the last time....perhaps the EyeTies are available.....?

Well as a parent of two that serve in the Armed Forces (though not overseas) I'd rather have them in Darfur than Afghanistan, thats just me though, as a parent.

[Army Guy]

Why do you perfer Darfur over afgan.

[Shakeyhands]

as I stated a few posts back, it seems that there is more of a need for humanitarian help and military protection of innocents there.

[southerncomfort]

Why do you perfer Darfur over afgan.

My question too cos our troops will be shot at there and it could motivate the radicals to take it out on us. Its muslim against muslim there too. There is also humanitarian aid needed in Afghanastan. You can bet if the troops were being killed in Darfur Harper would made to wear that one too.

[gc1765]

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

Darfur

What, in your opinion, makes Afghanistan a more worthy cause than Darfur?

[M.Dancer]

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

Darfur

What, in your opinion, makes Afghanistan a more worthy cause than Darfur?

How about because a Taliban controlled AFghanistan is a direct security threat to Canada and her allies.

[Peter F]

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

Darfur

What, in your opinion, makes Afghanistan a more worthy cause than Darfur?

How about because a Taliban controlled AFghanistan is a direct security threat to Canada and her allies.

I would suggest that the Direct threat to Canada and her allies came from "Terrorist organizations with international reach" - not the Taliban. Indirectly, the Taliban aided such terrorist organizations by allowing them to operate from thier controlled territory.

Fact is if they don't allow terrorism to operate from thier controlled territory then we have no complaint against the Taliban - other than they're right bastards.

[M.Dancer]

Indirectly, the Taliban aided such terrorist organizations by allowing them to operate from thier controlled territory.

A given that, it is prudent to assume the leopard hasn't changed her spots. The Taliban won't be allowed to run AFghanistan again.

[Peter F]

The Taliban won't be allowed to run AFghanistan again.

Actually, they could very well be allowed to run Afghanistan again. Neither Canada, the USA or NATO get to make that determination - Afghans do. If they want the Taliban they will have the Taliban

[M.Dancer]

The Taliban won't be allowed to run AFghanistan again.

Actually, they could very well be allowed to run Afghanistan again. Neither Canada, the USA or NATO get to make that determination - Afghans do. If they want the Taliban they will have the Taliban

Oh, you think that they will be allowed to run in the next election?

Alls ist vorgiven Herr Goebells, if ze germans vant you, they vill haff you......

[gc1765]

How about because a Taliban controlled AFghanistan is a direct security threat to Canada and her allies.

If anything, being in Afghanistan probably puts Canada more at risk for terrorism.

[M.Dancer]

How about because a Taliban controlled AFghanistan is a direct security threat to Canada and her allies.

If anything, being in Afghanistan probably puts Canada more at risk for terrorism.

Sure.....were we in Afghanistan when the Canadians were killed in the Twin Towers?

We are at risk, period. Our choice is to sit on the sidelines and pray that we are ignored or be proactive and ensure that our enemies are given a rough time.

[Army Guy]

GC1765:

What, in your opinion, makes Afghanistan a more worthy cause than Darfur?

Serveral reasons, The first is we have already choosen our cause, that being Afgan, with our limited resources we can not help everyone, nor does it make sense to drop everything and run to the next project or mission because it is a more worthy cause. If that was the case that is all we would be doing is running around not really accomplishing anything.

We have already invested a huge price in the Afgan mission, both in dollars and lives. and are just now seeing the fruit of those labours, does it make sense it just give up on all that when the outcome is still uncertain.

It takes huge amounts of cash to restart a mission any where, not only to build new infra structure, clean water sources, air strips, fuel and ammo dumps the list is endless, this monies are always taken out of DND's budget and although it is growing it can not afford to be set back by hundrds of millions just to set up a new operating base.

For the military, we already know the enemy and how they operate, we are finally getting the equipment we need to effectivily fight them. yes it is true some of this equipment can be used in Sudan, but jungle or savana type terrain requires different tactics and equipment, which would put us back to square one, giving the bad guys a huge advantage. something you don't want when your outnumbered in a very hostile enviroment.

Darfur will only happen if Sudan agrees to it, And that is not going to happen, they are quit aware that western militaries are very busy and occupied at this time, and could not mount a suffient force to make a regime change. and with only 3000 UN troops there now, in a area the size of france they can operate as they please.

This will force the UN to sit and watch thier actions as they know any force will be a toothless one, unable to back up and threat of use of force...

It might have a better chance under NATO, they may even be able to get more numbers from the Euro's, that part is uncertain.

And finally in Afgan we have a numerical advantage over the enemy, plus we have all the tools of war already assembled. it makes a big difference in sucess or failure.

[gc1765]

GC1765:

What, in your opinion, makes Afghanistan a more worthy cause than Darfur?

Serveral reasons, The first is we have already choosen our cause, that being Afgan, with our limited resources we can not help everyone, nor does it make sense to drop everything and run to the next project or mission because it is a more worthy cause. If that was the case that is all we would be doing is running around not really accomplishing anything.

We have already invested a huge price in the Afgan mission, both in dollars and lives. and are just now seeing the fruit of those labours, does it make sense it just give up on all that when the outcome is still uncertain.

It takes huge amounts of cash to restart a mission any where, not only to build new infra structure, clean water sources, air strips, fuel and ammo dumps the list is endless, this monies are always taken out of DND's budget and although it is growing it can not afford to be set back by hundrds of millions just to set up a new operating base.

For the military, we already know the enemy and how they operate, we are finally getting the equipment we need to effectivily fight them. yes it is true some of this equipment can be used in Sudan, but jungle or savana type terrain requires different tactics and equipment, which would put us back to square one, giving the bad guys a huge advantage. something you don't want when your outnumbered in a very hostile enviroment.

Darfur will only happen if Sudan agrees to it, And that is not going to happen, they are quit aware that western militaries are very busy and occupied at this time, and could not mount a suffient force to make a regime change. and with only 3000 UN troops there now, in a area the size of france they can operate as they please.

This will force the UN to sit and watch thier actions as they know any force will be a toothless one, unable to back up and threat of use of force...

It might have a better chance under NATO, they may even be able to get more numbers from the Euro's, that part is uncertain.

And finally in Afgan we have a numerical advantage over the enemy, plus we have all the tools of war already assembled. it makes a big difference in sucess or failure.

Good post. Thanks.

[Army Guy]

If anything, being in Afghanistan probably puts Canada more at risk for terrorism.

This seems to be a common theme in Canada, let us stick our heads in the sand and not worry about anything until it reaches our shores. lets not forget that almost 30 Canadians died in those 9/11 attacks, lets not forget about our defense treaties we have signed and depend on. lets not forget that Canada is part of the evil western infidel empire and we will always be a target. Lets not forget even if we go to Dafur we will be on someones target list.

Do we allow them to dictate to us thier terms, and conditions so that we are allowed to remain in the sand untouched. Canada has been a haven for terrorist and thier activities for to long, we are good at bashing others except those that need a good bashing, those like terrorist we only talk about in whispers, and in dark secluded bars, because those guys we don't want to offend. A good example of this is the Khadrs, proven terrorists, and what makes the headlines "them damn americans are holding him in gitmo".

We need to stand up for our own rights and freedoms, and not be afraid of tell the world this is what we believe in as a nation... don't like it, to bad it is who we are.

[gc1765]

Sure.....were we in Afghanistan when the Canadians were killed in the Twin Towers?

We are at risk, period. Our choice is to sit on the sidelines and pray that we are ignored or be proactive and ensure that our enemies are given a rough time.

Canadians were not targeted on 9/11. Because of our involvement in Afghanistan, it is possible that we will be specifically targeted.

That being said, who are the enemies that are a threat to Canada? The taliban or al-qaeda? How many of our troops are specifically looking for al-qaeda leaders like bin laden?

[M.Dancer]

Sure.....were we in Afghanistan when the Canadians were killed in the Twin Towers?

We are at risk, period. Our choice is to sit on the sidelines and pray that we are ignored or be proactive and ensure that our enemies are given a rough time.

Canadians were not targeted on 9/11. Because of our involvement in Afghanistan, it is possible that we will be specifically targeted.

That being said, who are the enemies that are a threat to Canada? The taliban or al-qaeda? How many of our troops are specifically looking for al-qaeda leaders like bin laden?

Try not to get confused. We aren't there to get Al Q. If we happen to kill a few, bonus points for us. We are there to prevent the group that aided Al Qaeda from regaining control.

And when our allies are targetted, we are targetted. If you need proof of that, I have 24 examples.

[gc1765]

Try not to get confused. We aren't there to get Al Q. If we happen to kill a few, bonus points for us. We are there to prevent the group that aided Al Qaeda from regaining control.

And why don't we want them to regain control? Because they are the threat? I always thought al qaeda was the threat.

[M.Dancer]

Try not to get confused. We aren't there to get Al Q. If we happen to kill a few, bonus points for us. We are there to prevent the group that aided Al Qaeda from regaining control.

And why don't we want them to regain control? Because they are the threat? I always thought al qaeda was the threat.

Argue much in circles?

They are threat enablers. Why don't we want them to regain control? Because they will aid our enemies.

Is it really that hard to figure out?

[gc1765]

Argue much in circles?

They are threat enablers. Why don't we want them to regain control? Because they will aid our enemies.

Is it really that hard to figure out?

Care to show a little civility when debating?

Why would we go after the threat enablers rather than the threat itself?

If some guy goes on a killing spree and then hides out in his neighbors house, who do you think it's more important to catch: the guy who did the killing, or the neighbor?

[M.Dancer]

Care to show a little civility when debating?

Why would we go after the threat enablers rather than the threat itself?

If some guy goes on a killing spree and then hides out in his neighbors house, who do you think it's more important to catch: the guy who did the killing, or the neighbor?

1) What makes you think that Al Qaeda isn't being pursued?

2) Did the neighbour aid and abet the killers killing spree? If so then going after the neighbour is just as important as going after the 1st suspect.

Are you seriously trying to argue that the Taleban are the unwitting innocent victims in an home invasion by Al Qaeda?

It isn't cibvility that is lacking in this discussion, just commonsense.

[gc1765]

1) What makes you think that Al Qaeda isn't being pursued?

Where did I say al qaeda isn't being pursued? I simply asked how much of our efforts are going towards eliminating al qaeda, and how much of our efforts are going towards keeping the taliban out of power. I have yet to get a response.

2) Did the neighbour aid and abet the killers killing spree? If so then going after the neighbour is just as important as going after the 1st suspect.

Are you seriously trying to argue that the Taleban are the unwitting innocent victims in an home invasion by Al Qaeda?

Of course not. I never said as much. What I am saying though, is that if this is about reducing the threat to Canada & allies, wouldn't it make more sense to go after al qaeda (ie bin laden) more so than the taliban?

[M.Dancer]

1) What makes you think that Al Qaeda isn't being pursued?

Where did I say al qaeda isn't being pursued?

Here.....

Why would we go after the threat enablers rather than the threat itself?

and here....

What I am saying though, is that if this is about reducing the threat to Canada & allies, wouldn't it make more sense to go after al qaeda (ie bin laden) more so than the taliban?

Are you asking that everything be done by Canada? Perhaps there is more than one mission, more than one way to skin a cat? That going after AlQaeda is being done...not just in Afghanistan but all around the world. And denying them a safe haven is part oif the whole.

Or is it yoiu just prefer we kill africans because they are less scary than Al Qaeda?

[gc1765]

Where did I say al qaeda isn't being pursued?

Here.....

Why would we go after the threat enablers rather than the threat itself?

and here....

What I am saying though, is that if this is about reducing the threat to Canada & allies, wouldn't it make more sense to go after al qaeda (ie bin laden) more so than the taliban?

I still don't see where I said al qaeda is not being pursued. I said it appears to me to make more sense to go after al qaeda more so than the taliban. Try to keep the quotes in context, it is you who argued that we are in Afghanistan to get rid of the taliban rather than al qaeda. I'm asking why that is the case? Why should we focus on the taliban (as YOU implied) rather than al qaeda? I never said anything about what is actually happening over there. That's precisely why I asked the question earlier, about how much of our efforts are focused on the taliban and how much are focused on al qaeda. I was hoping someone more intelligent than myself on the topic (for example, armyguy) could answer that question.

Are you asking that everything be done by Canada? Perhaps there is more than one mission, more than one way to skin a cat? That going after AlQaeda is being done...not just in Afghanistan but all around the world. And denying them a safe haven is part oif the whole.

Or is it yoiu just prefer we kill africans because they are less scary than Al Qaeda?

I don't believe I've ever argued one way or another whether we should be in Darfur. I simply asked armyguy why he thought Afghanistan was a more worthy cause than Darfur? He had a very intelligent response with some good points.